Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

(Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Students (Discretionary Awards)

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the level of discretionary awards being made to students for 1977–78 by local authorities is consistent with her policy to give priority to the education of students of 16 to 19 years of age.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Local education authorities are free to make their own decisions on the level of expenditure on discretionary awards and I have no information yet about their policies for the 1977–78 academic year. But I shall be exploring with the local authority associations ways and means of monitoring the position on discretionary awards.

Mr. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that constructive reply. Is she aware that there is growing evidence of anxiety in many quarters that the level

of discretionary awards next year will be lower than many would wish? Is there not therefore a case for her Department to look at ways in which a more specific grant could be given to local authorities in order to ensure that this aspect of policy retains the priority that she has accorded it?

Mrs. Williams: The most recent figures that I have are for 1975–76. They indicate that there was an increase of about 27 per cent. in expenditure in that year on about 50,000 discretionary awards. We do not have any later figures, and this is the purpose of a meeting with the local authority association on 23rd March. Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned by some indications that discretionary awards are being quite sharply reduced this year and were also reduced last year. I think that we should await the facts before making any further comments.

Mr. Hannam: Is the Secretary of State aware that because of the difficulties they experience in secondary education many handicapped and disabled students are not able to go forward into higher education, where they have mandatory awards? Will she therefore look carefully at the situation whereby local authorities may not be making enough use of the discretionary award schemes for handicapped students, and will she consider making them mandatory?

Mrs. Williams: I shall certainly look into that matter. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in some cases one of the reasons is that provision is not made for handicapped young people in the design of buildings. We recently sent out a circular specifically asking local authorities to bear this in mind when, for example, they are designing extensions to further education colleges and similar institutions.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas access is important, the point made by the hon. Gentleman is vital, namely, that disabled students would often qualify for mandatory grants but because of illnesses that occur, with disability, they are not able to take them up, and consequently they suffer if they come under the umbrella of discretionary grants? Will my right hon.


Friend please persuade local authorities to treat discretionary grants for disabled pupils and students as mandatory?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend's first point may provide an easier approach to the question. He probably has in mind the fact that where students are entitled to a mandatory award, as almost all are at the higher educational level on the first occasion, if they have to give them up for reasons of illness, they find that they are barred from a further mandatory award. I shall certainly look into that point. But on the wider question of discretionary awards, I refer back to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies). We need to know rather more facts about the matter.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Apart from the narrower but human problems raised earlier, is it not a fact that, contrary to some people's ideas, these discretionary awards cover very important courses, such as aspects of the medical profession and business studies, which are all directly relevant to the country's recovery and that therefore the widespread anxiety about their undue reduction is well founded?

Mrs. Williams: I share the hon. Gentleman's worries about this. He will be aware, however, that to make all discretionary awards mandatory would involve a substantial addition to public expenditure. The most that I can promise the House is to look into the matter to see whether there are particular categories that we might reconsider.

Under-Fives

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has any plans to give guidance to local education authorities with a view to reaching recognised standards of education for the rising-fives.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): It is for local education authorities to decide how to use their statutory powers to provide education for children below compulsory school age, subject of course to central Government guidance on the use of resources.

Mr. Walker: Is it not time we had a policy on the rising-fives? My own county of Avon has just decided that the rising-fives should not have education, which means that some children, because of the accident of their birthday, have a shorter time at infant school. This has a devastating effect on the whole of their school life.

Miss Jackson: The admission of rising-fives has been a problem for some time. Unfortunately, we have had to advise authorities that they should not admit rising-fives to schools unless the call on resources is minimal. Although there is a great deal of pressure to admit younger children to infant schools, there is also a suggestion by various authorities—by which I mean individuals and not local education authorities—that not every child is ready for admission to an infant class before the age of five.

Mr. Forman: Does the hon. Lady think that any contribution to the strengthening of pre-school provisions could be made by encouraging local education authorities to take over overall responsibility not only for nursery education but for child minders, playgroups and other aspects that now fall under the Department of Health and Social Security umbrella? Has the Department turned its mind to that?

Miss Jackson: Indeed it has. It issued a joint circular with the DHSS some time ago on the matter. We are continuing discussions with that Department to see what further co-operation we may be able to have.

Miss Joan Lestor: Has my hon. Friend any concern about the fact that local authorities have been advised not to admit rising-fives except under certain circumstances and that pre-school facilities are being savaged throughout the country, particularly by Tory authorities? Is she concerned about the effect that this will have on pre-school children, who, if they are not yet ready for full school, as my hon. Friend said, are certainly ready for some form of pre-school education and opportunity?

Miss Jackson: Indeed I am concerned, as I think no one can fail to be, but I must remind my hon. Friend that over 50 per cent. of five-year-olds are receiving some kind of education in nursery classes,


nursery schools or infant classes. I regret that this is one of the areas in which we cannot do more at present.

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the provision of education for those under 5 years.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has recently discussed this question with the British Association for Early Childhood Education and the Council for Educational Advance and officials of my Department will be meeting the Voluntary Organisation's Liaison Committee for Under Fives this week. My right hon. Friend has also received letters from hon. Members and others making various points about educational provision for the under-fives.

Mr. Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that there is considerable variation in the amount of nursery education that is provided from local authority to local authority? Is she aware that the provision of nursery education in Gloucestershire is one of the poorest in the whole country? If education at this age is important, as I believe my hon. Friend accepts, is it possible for her to do something to introduce some standard of equality throughout the country to ensure the proper provision of nursery education?

Miss Jackson: As my hon. Friend is all too well aware, Gloucestershire has the unhappy distinction of being the only county without a nursery school, having closed the only one that it previously had. That was something that we all bitterly regretted. It is true that there is uneven provision throughout the country. That is partly because of the provision that has been made for areas of special social need. There is no doubt that we should all like to see far wider provision of a far better standard.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are in difficulty in this matter in that although we may seek to make provision available we have no power to control what local authorities do in their areas. This is a problem that is exercising us.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some areas there could be very

much better and closer contact between local education authorities and the voluntary organisations and individuals involved in the care and education of the under-fives? Will she consider issuing firm advice to promote such contact and ensure not only that limited resources are effectively used but that personal enthusiasm is encouraged?

Miss Jackson: We are extremely aware of the need for co-operation between local authorities. As my hon. Friend knows, there has already been one circular on the matter. We are considering urgently what further steps we might take to promote such local co-operation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully accept the tremendous importance of education at an early age, and at under 5 in particular, but will the hon. Lady indicate whether the Government would be prepared to encourage parents, where provision could be made, to make a contribution towards the cost of those who undergo education before five years?

Miss Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the existence of pre-school play groups, which work partly on the basis of parental contribution. However, we believe that provision made by local authorities in the form of nursery education should be free, especially in areas where there is particular social need.

School Meals

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement about the policy of the Government towards charges for school meals, in the light of the projections for expenditure in the public expenditure White Paper.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The Government's policy on charging is set out on page 72 of Volume II of the White Paper.

Mr. Gow: Does the hon. Lady recall that in the White Paper of February 1976 it was stated that the charge for school meals would go up from 15p to 20p in September of last year? Bearing in mind that that did not happen—the Government broke their own undertaking—may the House assume that this time the Government mean what they say and


that the charge for school meals will be 25p this autumn?

Miss Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the negotiations on the last round of the social contract included a request that instead of the school meal going up to 20p in September 1976 the increase should be postponed until September this year, when the cost is expected to go up to 25p. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a prophet, but that is what is intended.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that many working people with large families are very concerned about increases in the cost of school meals and of bus transport to school and that they feel much more deeply about such increases resulting indirectly from Government policy than about those applied by the private sector? Will she ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use her considerable power within the Cabinet to get the decision reversed, even at this stage?

Miss Jackson: We are concerned to avoid imposing more increases than are absolutely necessary, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the subsidy on school meals has risen substantially, and unfortunately we have not felt able to continue it at that level any longer. That is why, sadly, the price is intended to be raised in September.

Evelyn Library

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has held and what representations she has received about the future of the Evelyn Library.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: While the Government have received representations from Christ Church, Oxford, the Friends of the National Libraries, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and three members of the public, they have received none whatsoever from the trustees. My noble Friend is considering, in consultation with the British Library, whether there is any way in which the collection can be kept together.

Mr. Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply, particularly her last few words. Does she agree that this is a collection of pre-eminent importance and

that everything possible should be done to keep it in the country? Will she take a personal interest in doing just that?

Mrs. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have already taken a personal interest. The problem is whether the trustees also appreciate the importance of keeping the collection together. There is, at least in law, no way in which the Government can compel them to put the collection forward for public purchase or purchase in any other way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the right hon Lady realise that her Department is gaining a reputation for philistine indifference to the future of our national heritage, what with Mentmore, first, and the Evelyn collection, second? Will she wake her noble colleague the Minister responsible for the arts, now almost invisible, out of his slumbers and get him to call a conference between representatives of the family, representatives of the British Library's Board and Treasury officials, so that something can be done by the Government to keep this unique library intact for the benefit of the nation?

Mrs. Williams: My best response to the hon. Gentleman is to say that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. That is the precise situation with regard to the Evelyn Collection.

Child Literacy

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she intends to set up a committee to advise her on child literacy.

Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir. I am not convinced that such a committee would serve any useful purpose. The findings and recommendations of the Bullock Report "A Language for Life" remain highly relevant. In addition, we are looking closely at the question of basic skills, including that of literacy, during the present debate on education.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Lady aware that between 1973 and 1976 real expenditure on books in primary schools fell by 10 per cent. and that this year some major authorities are planning to cut back their expenditure on books in primary schools by as much as 15 per cent? How will that help literacy?

Miss Jackson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I regret that some local authorities are being forced to take these steps as part of their response to restraints on public expenditure. I should be glad if in welcoming public expenditure cuts, as they do, Opposition Members would also welcome their consequences, of which this is one.

Mr. Watkinson: When she is considering the question of child literacy, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems of the dyslexic child, and also bear in mind that such children benefit from specialised teaching? Will she do all she can to encourage specialised teaching methods and training for people in this field?

Miss Jackson: This is a subject in which I have taken a degree of interest. I am not sure whether any particularly specialised method is appropriate but certainly a degree of attention is needed for dyslexic children, as for children with other reading difficulties, specific or otherwise. To that extent, I recognise my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Rathbone: Will the hon. Lady please reconsider her last answer? Does she appreciate that very special methods are needed for dyslexic children and that very often those children are incapable of obtaining full benefit from the education system, because those special methods are not made available to them owing to lack of grants from local education authorities?

Miss Jackson: I have discussed the matter at some length with people who are experienced and expert in the field and have had particular success with children with such problems. It is my understanding that there is no particular method. As with every other kind of teaching of reading to children with problems, there is a variety of methods, some of which are suitable for one child but not for another with, in theory, precisely the same problem. I do not accept that there is a simple problem with a simple set of solutions. I am certainly aware of the difficulties.

University Grants Committee

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has

any plans to meet the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has any plans to meet the University Grants Committee.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have no immediate plans to meet the committee.

Mr. Rooker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the committee will she ask it to press on the authorities of Birmingham University the need to honour the national holiday agreement, arrived at in 1974 after an arbitration agreement, and so end what has become the longest dispute in this country, lasting more than six months?

Mrs. Williams: I understand that what is in dispute is the interpretation of the agreement and not the matter of pay policy. I do not think that it would be right for me to take either side.

Mr. Hoyle: Has not the union concerned, ASTMS, put forward two proposals which, with reasonable management, could meet with some response? One proposal is that the union should accept the holiday agreement given to it by Warwick and, secondly, that meetings should be held under the chairmanship of an independent person experienced in labour relations. Do not both proposals appear to be reasonable?

Mrs. Williams: I understand that it has been suggested by the union that ACAS should be brought in. I very much hope that the two sides will re-examine the matter.

Mr. Beith: Does the fact that the right hon. Lady has no immediate plans to meet the UGC mean that she regards that body as a very satisfactory way of organising university finance, avoiding any direct involvement by Government Departments? Does it not provide a better model for the financing of polytechnics than her own continued enthusiasm for the binary system?

Mrs. Williams: The reason I replied as I did was that I met representatives of the UGC as recently as last November, and I have met its chairman on several occasions since that time. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not draw misleading conclusions.

Mr. Grylls: Has the right hon. Lady discussed with the UGC the subject of Shoreditch College, in my constituency, and the possibility of that college crossing the binary line and joining with the universities?

Mrs. Williams: No, Sir; it would not be appropriate for me to do so because Shoreditch College is the responsibility of ILEA. It is for that authority to put forward proposals relating to Shoreditch College before any other step can be taken or considered. We are still awaiting their proposals.

Sixth Form Colleges

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement about the future of sixth form colleges.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Thirty-two local education authorities have now established sixth form colleges as part of their schemes for secondary reorganisation I welcome this, especially at a time of declining secondary school rolls. Sixth form colleges allow a wide range of courses to be provided on an economical basis for all those who wish to continue their education beyond 16.

Mr. Grylls: Will the Minister say why there is this anomaly in the regulations applying to post-16 education in schools and sixth form colleges and those who go to further education colleges after 16? Why are such matters as the provision of fares not allowed in colleges of further education? Will the Minister consider publishing common regulations applying to both sectors—school education and college education—after 16? That would be fairer, and helpful.

Miss Jackson: We are aware of the problems arising from the fact that tertiary colleges and sixth form colleges operate under different regulations. That is the way in which the matter has evolved. We are considering the position.

Dr. Boyson: Will the Minister assure the House that before the Government bring any pressure to bear in terms of any further advance in the number of sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges there will be a full public examination of academic results compared with other

areas and other forms of organisation and also comparing the results in terms of the teaching profession in relation to children of the age of 16?

Miss Jackson: It would be wise to examine the results at sixth form colleges, and such an exercise could produce only a favourable reaction. I question whether we should look at academic results only, since the whole point of sixth form colleges is to provide academic and non-academic courses. It would be a pity to look at only one side.

Policy Conferences

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the views of parents are being adequately reflected in the great debate on education.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Representatives of parents have been invited to all the regional conferences on education which are now taking place. At the conferences held so far parents have made a significant contribution to the discussion. In addition, my right hon. Friend has received a substantial number of written comments from parents and from organisations representing their interests.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister say whether the views put forward by parents at conferences are similar to the views expressed by parents when writing to the Department of Education expressing dissatisfaction with the schools allocated in secondary school transfers? If those views are not being put forward, what action does the Department take to ensure that dissident views are heard?

Miss Jackson: I find the hon. Gentleman's question hard to answer. On the whole, parents who write to us about regional conferences discuss general questions of education rather than the placement of a particular child. We are aware that many problems arise in the choice of school, but there is no single factor that can be applied to each case. There is a tremendous range of problems, which differ from one family to another and from one child to another.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Since this Question deals with the great debate, will my hon. Friend comment on the article in the Daily Express last Saturday headed "Return to the 11-plus" in which that


newspaper, reporting on a conference in Peterborough at which the Minister spoke the day before, inferred from certain statements she made that some form of examination, even if not in 11-plus form, was to be reintroduced?

Miss Jackson: It was a classic example of an accurate quotation of one's words but the wrong conclusions being drawn from them. The Daily Express appeared to suggest that we were in favour of the reintroduction of the 11-plus examination as it existed. That is totally inaccurate. We are not opposed, nor can anybody be opposed, to a proper system of diagnostic assessment at any age, in the sense that it allows for any problems found to be remedied. That is a very different matter from the 11-plus. That was a system of classifying children for the rest of their school education.

Mr. Forman: How many of the people invited to regional conferences came specifically in their capacity as parents? Is the Minister satisfied that enough parents attended these conferences?

Miss Jackson: Parents' representatives have numbered 68 out of a total of 863 who have attended the conferences. 17 parents have spoken at the conferences, out of a total of 160 speakers. That is not a bad balance. We have tried to maintain a reasonable balance between the various interests and have specifically called people in the various groups. We particularly asked parents to contribute to the discussions.

Mr. Litterick: In some respects cannot the attitude adopted by parents be positively harmful—to wit, that young people seeking entrance to further and higher education are wholly dependent on the whims of their parents since those parents must sign income declaration forms? I have in my constituency one young talented student who is now being excluded from Birmingham School of Music simply because of the attitude of his parents, which is a totally negative one, since by not signing the declaration they are denying him higher education.

Miss Jackson: I am concerned by what my hon. Friend says. It is most unusual. I shall be grateful it he will write to me giving the details of that case.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister recognise that although we are glad that

she is holding this series of conferences—as a prelude to our own, which will take place after Easter—we would welcome even more a clear statement of Government policy on the proposals in our parent' charter for parental governors of schools in the maintained sector, for the publication of prospectuses, and for other measures that we have put forward to increase parental influence in our schools?

Miss Jackson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that matter, because it gives me the opportunity to make the position clear. The implication from what has been said is that the Conservative Party was not being invited to the conferences. We very much regret the fact that although Conservative representatives were invited none has put in an appearance.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we had not commented on the Conservative's parents' charter. It is already possible for parents to serve as managers and governors, and in many areas parents undertake such service. We are awaiting the report of the Taylor Committee before deciding whether this should be made a universal practice.
On the subject of prospectuses, the hon. Gentleman will know that in the proceedings on the Education Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that she was still considering advice, and that process is still taking place.

Teacher Training

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she intends to take to see that there is adequate in-service training for teachers.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Government's expenditure plans include provision for the gradual expansion of in-service training from 1977–78. The proposals for the future of the teacher training system that I announced on 24th January envisage that about 10,000 of the 45,000 places proposed for 1981 will be devoted to in-service education and training.

Mr. Miller: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. In view of the cuts imposed on local education authorities,


does she agree that there is a need to give greater attention to weekend and evening forms of in-service training rather than sending teachers away for whole terms, or years? In particular, will she bear in mind the value of the work done by the North Worcestershire College in that respect?

Mrs. Williams: We are looking closely at school-based training and in-service training based at teacher centres, for example. It is by no means the case that all in-service teacher training takes place in the colleges, although some of it does. It will be a matter for the local education authority to decide whether to continue in-service training at the North Worcestershire College, but we would welcome that course being taken.

Mr. William Shelton: How many deputations has the right hon. Lady received from hon. Members of this place or Members of another place regarding closures of teacher training colleges? Has she received a letter from me about the proposed closure of the Philippa Fawcett College, in my constituency?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has seen a good many delegations. I could not give the precise number without notice, but it must be more than 20. My hon. Friend has so far accepted a deputation from a local authority that wants to see him, whether or not accompanied by its Member of Parliament.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the cuts in education, sad as they are, are much smaller than those that the Conservative Party would engage in if in power? Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that they will have an adverse effect on the many teacher centres used for in-service training throughout the country? Will she keep an eye on these matters and ensure that Draconian cuts are not made that mean the abolition of in-service training in these schools?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will know that in the rate support grant settlement for next year we went to great trouble to set aside £7 million to make a start on in-service training. I have to say that, sadly, not all local education authorities are following our advice,

although most teacher centres are being continued. That is why I have suggested that this might be an appropriate area for some degree of specific grant to ensure that in-service training, upon which I and the teacher organisations place the greatest possible priority, shall be guaranteed over the next few years.

Mr. Crouch: As part of her special initiative to improve education, does the right hon. Lady not consider that she should take an initiative with the universities and seek their advice on in-service training? Is she aware that many universities want to give advice on in-service training, especially in mathematics, as it is their great concern that the teaching of that subject in primary and secondary schools is below the standard now required? Does the right hon. Lady agree that this matter should not be left to the local authorities, and that she should take the initiative and talk to the universities?

Mrs. Williams: I have already discussed in-service training with the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers, which contains representatives from the universities. I am bound to say that one important element in in-service training is the basic professional understanding of how to deal with a class, how to teach reading, and how to get across basic skills in mathematics. In some ways the university input is not in that sphere.

National Art Collections

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further representations she has received concerning the circulation of national collections in the future.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Since my right hon. Friend's statement in reply to my right hon. Friend, the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on 10th February 1977, representations have been received from about 20 hon. Members, seven local authorities or their organisations, one area museum council and two national organisations.

Mr. Hannam: Does the hon. Lady accept that the closure of the V and A Regional Services Department goes totally against the V and A's original charter, which was established to take our art


treasures from London into the provinces? Why were there no consultations with the Museums Association? Will the result of this decision not be the breaking up of many valuable art collections that were donated by individuals in trust for this purpose?

Miss Jackson: No, I do not think that that will be so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that about 90 per cent. of the circulating material will be available and we hope to have a new scheme enabling us to borrow from all national collections. Although this Department is being closed we do not feel that this will be the end of local museums receiving help. The hon. Gentleman will know that my noble Friend Lord Donaldson plans to hold a conference with the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, at which it will be possible for these issues to be raised and further discussed.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend outline the alternatives that would allow art collections to go round the country? The closure of this Department could be a most regrettable step, as in many cases local authorities have relied totally upon it. It would be very bad for young people in the provinces not to be able to have the benefit of seeing these collections.

Miss Jackson: That would be true if it were the case. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not realise that although we are proposing to make changes we are not proposing to abolish the scheme altogether. We hope that some of the changes will improve the situation. I have already told the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) that 90 per cent. of the circulating material will continue to be on offer. The previous scheme referred only to the Victoria and Albert, whereas this scheme will refer to all national collections. A matter that we think will be of particular assistance is the proposal for a Government indemnity for the insurance of objects being borrowed. That will have the effect of making local authorities much more willing to borrow, as well as making it easier for them to continue to borrow on an extensive scale.

Higher and Further Education (Incentives)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and

Science what study she has made of the use of incentives to students in higher and further education aimed at attracting students to nationally desirable areas of study.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In general, the mandatory awards system is intended to enable students to complete their course of study, whatever the subject. But I announced on 3rd February a change in the mandatory awards arrangements whereby payments of up to £500 per annum may be made by employers, or by way of scholarships, without a reduction in the student's grant. This will be in addition to the normal disregard of income, which is at present £185 per annum. I am also considering the possibility of a national scholarship scheme for students taking selected engineering courses.

Mr. Roberts: I greatly welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has taken. I am sure that she will be as aware as I am that many people who are involved in this area and who in the past have been reluctant to support such incentives are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of support for some college courses that are regarded as important in the national interest, and they believe that something must be done to reorient students.

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I would only add to what I have said that I think that the status of certain professions, such as engineering, is also very important and that it is useful for society itself to reflect the special value that we place upon those going into industry, particularly productive industry, on either side.

Mr. Marten: Taking the problem back to a rather earlier age, what is being done to make careers guidance available at an earlier age to pupils at school?

Mrs. Williams: We are looking carefully at the careers guidance position. We have suggested to schools in the course of our document that careers guidance should start as young as 13. In many schools it starts too late. There are now signs of a marked move towards science and engineering in the schools and in applications to universities and colleges.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's reported concern about the


teaching of foreign languages, will she consider, in making special awards, the granting of higher education awards to pupils who wish to take difficult languages suitable for the export drive, such as Arabic, Persian and Portuguese?

Mrs. Williams: I shall consider that, but what we are primarily trying to do at present is to discuss with the bodies concerned the possibility of combining languages with technology and engineering courses, which at present is very rare. I think that there is far too much emphasis on the view that a person studies either languages or technology but never both together.

Dr. Boyson: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the limited number studying mathematics, science and modern languages in university from 1971 to 1975, which was static, was determined largely by the numbers reading those subjects in the fifth and sixth forms of schools? What does she suggest can be done to encourage at that earlier stage not only the careers guidance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred but good teaching in fifth and sixth forms, so that the students are prepared for these subjects at university?

Mrs. Williams: There is an absolutely crucial step, which I think should have been taken even earlier with regard to the problem of resolving the shortage of teachers in mathematics and science, which for many years have been shortage subjects. We are inviting 11 colleges to mount special courses for teachers in the shortage subject of mathematics. We have already invited 11 colleges to mount special courses for teachers in the shortage subjects of technology and craft. I agree that a student cannot study maths and science unless he is taught by someone with an affection for the subject and who knows how to teach it.

Adult Illiteracy

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the campaign to reduce adult illiteracy.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The campaign to reduce adult illiteracy is a unique collaborative movement involving local education authorities, voluntary bodies, the BBC, and the Government. In the

two years since the Adult Literacy Resource Agency was set up to provide assistance with Government funds, a firm foundation of local provision has been established, some 50,000 volunteer tutors have come forward, and the number of students has grown to over 100,000. The agency is currently collecting material for a further report.

Mr.Viggers: Is the Minister aware that the number of 100,000 shows a considerable success for the scheme, but it needs to be measured against the number of 2 million who need to be regarded as illiterate for practical purposes? Will she bear this in mind when talking to her colleagues about the appropriate language to use in Government forms, many of which must be incapable of being understood by many of those for whom they are intended?

Miss Jackson: Yes, that is a very good point. We are certainly aware of the immensity of the problem of adult illiteracy, which does so little to bear out the comments made by some of the hon. Member's hon. Friends about the virtues of our past education system.

Mr. Noble: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to another area of adult illiteracy, namely, problems of the English language, particularly those faced by immigrants in industrial areas? This is principally a problem for the Home Office, but does my hon. Friend acknowledge that some education authorities have refused to provide the 25 per cent. grant under the urban aid programme? Will she assure the House that her Department will consult Home Office Ministers so that money will be forthcoming to establish language training sectors for immigrant workers?

Miss Jackson: We are looking into this problem. My hon. Friend will be aware that the BBC is currently considering dealing with this aspect in a programme similar to that dealing with the subject of adult illiteracy.

Mr. William Shelton: If the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are, as they say, rightly concerned about illiteracy, is it not disgraceful that the Government have not yet found time to debate the Bullock Report on Illiteracy? Will she have a word with her


right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to remedying this?

Miss Jackson: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about finding time for a debate on a Supply Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORTGAGE INTEREST (TAX RELIEF)

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the administration of mortgage interest tax relief.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCrindle.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Douglas-Mann: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) did not rise initially. I shall call him later, if he wishes. I looked in his direction but he did not rise after the Prime Minister had said "Yes, Sir." The hon. Gentleman merely smiled. We are now wasting time. I have called the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was, perhaps, too anxious to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has obviously been a most successful visit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentleman later, if he wishes. I told him that I have called the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Prime Minister agree with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party that the maximum mortgage upon which tax relief should be allowed should be reduced from £25,000? Is this because the price of houses has decreased or because the influence of the Left has risen?

The Prime Minister: The NEC has put forward a series of very interesting proposals, which were drawn to my attention this morning and which I shall study with great care. As for the limit on the value of houses—£25,000—I understand that for the past two years since the limit was fixed the price of houses in that range has not varied very much, and therefore the figure is pretty well stationary.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are many owner-occupiers at present receive far too little help? I have in mind particularly those buying for the first time, those who have bought within the past five years, and retired people who cannot afford to keep up their mortgages. On the other hand, there are others who bought their houses a good many years ago and whose housing costs now represent a very small proportion of their income and who, therefore, are receiving too much help?
Will my right hon. Friend also pay attention to the NEDC Report, the contents of which were leaked by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), which drew attention to the extent to which savings are diverted from productive investment to investment in housing? Does my right hon. Friend consider that there would be social and economic benefit if he were to ask the two Ministers concerned to review this matter with a view to ensuring that there was at least some redistribution within the owner-occupier sphere?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raised a number of very important points, including the position of those who are first-time buyers as well as others who have to move their place of residence because of their work. The trouble with our mortgage interest relief system is that, like Topsy, it has "just growed." I think that there is a very good case for reviewing it, as the Housing Finance Review is now doing, and we shall present our conclusions to the House in due course—[Interruption.] I agree that it is taking rather longer than I had hoped, but this is a very complex topic and we must balance equity and fairness in studying these matters. I would sooner not rush it, as the system has grown up over such a long period.
I observed some of the newspaper remarks about the NEDO report. It may well be that my hon. Friend is right in saying that investment in housing has increased faster than investment in manufacturing. I do not think that that necessarily means that we should cut down investment in housing so much as increase investment in manufacturing.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very special problem facing the clergy and other low-paid people who must live in tied houses and who at the moment are denied mortgage interest relief on their retirement homes? This is a very deserving class of people.

The Prime Minister: I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury discussed this matter with the House last year, during the Finance Bill debates, and that he said that he would consider the matter again in the light of the interdepartmental review of the tax treatment of representative occupiers. At this stage in the financial year it is not right that I should anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not fairer that we should devote to owner-occupiers and council house tenants at the lower end of the scale some of the subsidies that now go to the richest house purchasers, some of whom are receiving over £40 a week in housing subsidy? Will my right hon. Friend devote some of the savings that I hope he will secure in that way to restore the cuts in house building and improvement?

The Prime Minister: I cannot add to what has been said in earlier exchanges relating to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The extent of mortgage interest tax relief and the levels at which that relief should be given are matters that should be left to the Housing Finance Review. I do not wish to anticipate the proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRMINGHAM

Mr. Litterick: asked the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Birmingham in the near future.

Q3. Mr. Rooker: asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Birmingham.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Litterick: Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that his answer will be widely regretted in Birmingham, particularly by the laboratory technicians who are now involved in a dispute with the management of Birmingham University—a dispute that is entirely due to the obdurate refusal of the management to implement a national agreement? Will the Prime Minister consult the Lord Privy Seal about inviting the Queen, in her capacity as visitor to the university, to institute an inquiry into the administration of the university, which is being negligently mismanaged?

The Prime Minister: This is a strange situation, where a dispute over five or six days' annual leave has provoked a strike that has now lasted for five months. I do not intend to apportion responsibility in this dispute any more than I would in any other industrial dispute, but with all the resources that have been made available in one form and another it should be possible to find a mechanism to resolve the dispute without involving Her Majesty.

Mr. Rooker: If my right hon. Friend visits Birmingham, will he see the vice-chancellor of the university and tell him that it is incompatible with enlightened management in the twentieth century to use violence against official pickets, including young females, to cause injury and to use blackleg labour to break an official strike? Will my right hon. Friend consider instituting a full and deep-searching public inquiry into the running of Birmingham University?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to give an answer now about a deep-seated inquiry into the running of the university. Apart from this dispute I have no evidence of anything being wrong, although I have not studied in depth the running of this institute of learning.
If there are allegations of criminal action by the police, Section 64 of the Police Act 1964 should be used. My hon. Friend should put Questions to the Secretary of State for Employment if there are allegations of the improper breaking of picket lines.

Mr. Eyre: I recognise that the Prime Minister has other heavy obligations, but will he arrange to visit Birmingham as early as possible next week and to hold a public meeting at the Saltley gas works? Will he invite Birmingham housewives to consult him about the fantastic rise in prices and the appalling fall in living standards with inflation running at 21 per cent.? Will he explain to them why the Government have no faith in the Price Commission and why they have, by diktat, imposed an extra tax on gas users?

The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to go to Birmingham next week, but I shall not hesitate to explain to housewives that our economic policy must be regarded as a whole. I shall explain that as a result of action by the Government confidence in sterling has been restored, the balance of payments is going in the right direction, and industrial production in the last quarter has moved up by 1½ per cent.—although I shall not fall into the habit of the Opposition and multiply that by four in order to obtain an annual figure. I shall also tell housewives that the minimum lending rate for borrowing is now well below what it was when we came into office. I shall explain all these matters and indicate to the housewives of Birmingham and everywhere else that the Government's economic policy stands as a whole and will bring us through to success.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister now answer my hon. Friend's question? Why, while the Prime Minister rightly stresses that it is important not to breach phase 2 of the Pay Code, is he nevertheless prepared for the Government to breach the Price Code by raising the price of gas, as they intend to do?

The Prime Minister: This matter was discussed in the House yesterday and no doubt it will be discussed again. There is no breach in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced this in December last year and the Opposition did not take it up. There has been neither a breach nor any covert action. Unlike the situation that existed when the Opposition were in power, when the gas industry was allowed to drift into subsidy, when prices were kept down artificially and the nationalised industries ran into debt, this is a case in which the nationalised gas industry, like others, has

been rescued from the Opposition and is able to pay its way. The money will be used for the benefit of gas consumers.

Mrs. Thatcher: If the Price Code has not been breached, why is the increase not allowable under it?

The Prime Minister: The increase is not allowable under the Price Code within the rules that are laid down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug."] Opposition Members are the last people who should shout "Humbug". We have brought the matter to the House and we shall ask the House for its confirmation of what we are doing. If the House refuses that confirmation it will destroy a part of the economic package as a whole. It is easy for the Opposition to pick out an individual item, but the policy is part of a whole. It is succeeding and will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 15th March 1977.

Mr. Gow: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 15th March 1977.

The Prime Minister: This morning I took the chair at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Morrison: In the light of the unfortunate fall in the volume in visible exports last month, does the Prime Minister agree that much of the credit for last month's surpluses should go to the City of London? Will he take time off to draw that to the attention of his hon. Friends below the Gangway and suggest to them that they should stop sniping at the City as they did last week, because by so doing they are sapping the morale of one of our best exporters?

The Prime Minister: The fall-off in the volume of exports last month was to some extent due to the position in the car industry. [Interruption.] The trade unions have done a remarkable job in this very serious matter. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering


Unions has issued a statement today. It is something that has never happened in our industrial history. It has agreed with British Leyland that if, when the workshops are reopened on Monday, the toolmakers do not get back to work they will have discharged themselves. That is unprecedented. Mr. Scanlon and other trade union leaders deserve the full support of the Opposition and everyone else.
As for the Government's attitude, we of course support the joint statement that has been made by British Leyland and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. I am bound to point out, in this very serious situation, that what has happened so far means that the Government will have to review the future of British Leyland in the light of the way in which the situation develops. Whatever happens now, a review of British Leyland's plans will be needed. How drastic it will be will depend upon the speed which the men return to work.

Mr. Gow: Does the Prime Minister recall that in the Chancellor's letter to the Managing Director of the IMF, of 15th December last, he stated that the twin pillars of the Government's strategy were the social contract and the industrial strategy? When, later today, the Prime Minister is preparing his party political broadcasts in advance of the by-election at Stechford, will he take the opportunity of explaining why, it is that those two pillars are pillars of straw?

Mr. Bryan Davies: As my right hon. Friend's engagements for the remainder of the day seem fairly mundane, would he care to switch his list with mine and take the opportunity, this evening, of meeting the Lord Mayor of London near the Tower and perhaps conveying to that gentleman the advantages of holding one's office on the basis of direct election by the people rather than on the basis of a property qualification and a very restricted franchise?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the question of direct elections is a vexed one and that principles can be applied differently in different places. However, certainly in the City of London I understand that elections are not regarded as being necessarily less valuable because

they are not wholly direct, or because they cover a large number of people. I have read my hon. Friend's recent speech. I thought that it was a very good one. However, the City of London contributes a very great deal financially to other London boroughs over the financial year.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Prime Minister accept that among the services provided to the Government by the trade unions was the selling of the social contract to their members? The appalling rise in food prices has shown that the implied assurances that prices would be kept down have entirely failed. Therefore, there is not the slightest justification for asking the unions to accept a further phase of the pay freeze.

The Prime Minister: This is a very hard case to answer. While it is in the nation's interests that once again we should have another wage round and a wage settlement—the Opposition will take their own view—the truth is that sterling declined in value last autumn and, as a result, and because of the drought last year, food prices and the prices of commodities have risen very much. We are now beginning to see the end of that. As I said to the House previously, this will, I think, work its way through by mid-year, according to our forecasts. After that, because of the recovery in sterling and because of the measures that the Chancellor took, we expect the rate of inflation to diminish rapidly and substantially. If that is so, if we can get another wage round it will be well worth people's while to stick to that rather than have a free-for-all and see inflation go roaring away once again.
We have a real chance in the next 12 months, and I intend to fight as hard as I can—whether it be the Opposition or anyone else—in order to try to get this country through.

UNITED STATES AND CANADA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States and Canada, on which I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs. I apologise for the length of the statement.
This was my first opportunity of hearing at first hand the views of President Carter and the new Administration, a team which carries the heavy responsibility of guaranteeing the overall security of the Western democracies and of supervising and guiding the world's most powerful economy. It is very much a national interest to strike up a close and effective working relationship.
As my visit occurred during the British presidency of the European Community, I was able to explain to President Carter the attitudes of the Nine to some of the issues we discussed and the preoccupations of the Community.
The President has set in hand new initiatives on a number of different fronts and it was stimulating to observe a positive approach to some long-standing international problems and a willingness to take a new look at the long-term objectives and how they should be achieved. We had no difficulty in identifying the major problems facing the Western world, and we shared, to a very considerable degree, a common approach towards the way in which they should be tackled.
The President spoke warmly of the special relationship between America and Britain, and it is my intention that the Government should work closely with his Administration. We must also contribute to the maximum collaboration between the United States and the European Community, and President Carter made clear that he shares this purpose and desires to see the strengthening of the Community. The President also attached great importance to full consultation and co-operation with America's allies in the North Atlantic Alliance, and I warmly welcomed this. During my talks with Prime Minister Trudeau, who has himself recently visited Washington, I was glad to learn that he agreed generally with this judgment.
In both Washington and Ottawa the emphasis of the discussions was on economic problems, including our aims and prospects for the Downing Street Summit Conference to be held in May. I have every reason to believe that it is the intention of both President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau that the

preparations for this conference, which have already begun, should be carried forward in a constructive manner, and that we should be ready to adopt a positive approach to the major issues when we meet with the other leaders of the leading Western industrialised countries.
We discussed the pressing problems—of unemployment, inflation and economic recession. I cannot claim that we discovered any panacea for these problems. But the important point is that there is an identity in our assessment. We recognised that it would take a considerable time to reduce the present high levels of world unemployment and agreed on the high priority we should give in this situation to the problem of unemployment among school leavers and among young people generally. We agreed on the need to tackle the problems caused by large and persisting imbalances in the world's external payments system. I suggested that these imbalances, particularly as they affect less developed countries, call for an expansion of the official facilities for financing balance of payments deficits. This is an area in which I look for major advances in the period ahead. President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau both agreed that this problem should be examined as a matter of urgency.
We discussed whether the prospects for the multilateral trade negotiations would be set back by the present world recession. We agreed that general protectionism could serve only to delay the world's emergence from the present economic recession.
I advanced the view that if the United States, as the largest trading nation, was unable to resist pressures for protectionism at home, this would not only slow down progress in the negotiations but would encourage others to follow.
We discussed the problems of relations between industrialised and developing countries, which are being intensively examined in various international bodies. President Carter and I were agreed on the importance of adopting an understanding and constructive approach to the aspirations and needs of developing countries, which are reflected in the issues to be discussed at the ministerial meeting of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in May. I was able to inform him of the discussions in


the Community on the preparation of a common position for the negotiations. In Ottawa, too, I was able to have useful discussions on these issues in the light of the special Canadian interest resulting from their position as co-chairman of the CIEC. In both capitals there is an encouraging desire to ensure a successful outcome of the ministerial meeting.
President Carter and I discussed at length the subject of human rights, on which, as the House knows, the President feels deeply and has expressed his views in a forthright manner. It was clear that President Carter had given very careful thought to his approach to this matter, and he welcomed the speech made recently by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. In the area of East-West relations we agreed on the importance of adopting a non-polemical approach to the Belgrade Conference and I was assured that the President is anxious to work closely with the Nine and with all their NATO partners with a view to a serious dialogue with the East at Belgrade. Europe need have no doubt that the new Administration shares a desire for improved detente between East and West, whilst maintaining adequate security.
We discussed the problems of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, to which President Carter attaches high priority. Both of us subscribe to the same objectives. These are complicated issues but vitally important for the future security of the world. President Carter is well aware of the difficulties—political, technical and sometimes commercial—which lie before us in the search for solutions. But we were in complete agreement that renewed efforts must be made to resolve them.
We also discussed the situation in various parts of the world in which we have a mutual interest in helping to create or maintain stability. On the future of Cyprus, we welcomed the resumption of intercommunal talks at the meeting which is to take place shortly in Vienna. On the Middle East, President Carter informed me fully of the United States' latest ideas on the matter and I emphasised the importance of keeping closely in touch with each other over developments in this area.
In addition to the general talk I had with President Carter about Southern Africa as a whole, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had detailed talks on Rhodesia and Namibia with Mr. Vance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed them that he will visit Southern Africa during the Easter recess to have first-hand discussions with those most directly concerned.
President Carter confirmed that he is prepared to give his full support to our efforts to find a basis for a settlement, and that he will continue the co-operation with us which was begun under the previous Administration.
I took the opportunity of emphasising to the President our concern that Concorde should be allowed to land in New York. The President has indicated that he is in favour of a trial period. Judging from some of the statements which were made while I was there, it seems that American opinion may be moving slightly in our favour.
I end this report by saying that I am confident that President Carter will give a positive lead to the West in areas where American leadership is necessary and welcome and that the Administration's new ideas and initiatives are tempered by realism, and that I am confident that the President recognises the importance of fostering and strengthening his ties with America's allies by regular contacts and consultation. I look forward to welcoming him and Prime Minister Trudeau as well as the other leaders to the Downing Street conference in May.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that we warmly welcome his visit to the United States and that we particularly welcome his use of the phrase,
special relationship between America and Britain"?
I understand that President Carter also used that phrase while the right hon. Gentleman was there.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a long statement, but I shall confine myself to three points. First, on the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, did the President renew the proposal that America would be prepared to spend more on the Alliance if her partners were willing to spend more, too? Is the Prime Minister aware that, while we know that he supports the Alliance, we find some


difference between what he says and his actions in the defence budget which seems to be cut constantly, whenever there is an opportunity?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a little more about Rhodesia? We understand from the statement that the Foreign Secretary will be visiting Southern Africa. Will he be going there with specific proposals? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House were disappointed that the Kissinger proposals did not come to fruition and that we are particularly anxious for proposals to be found that are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia?
Thirdly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the phrase about protectionism that he used on page 3 of his statement? It would seem that he had discussions with the President on this matter and, from what he said, that there was some fear of increased protection. Did the Prime Minister discuss the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers with the President, because in America these barriers are sometimes higher than in the rest of the industrialised world?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for what she has said. The major part of our discussion on arms was on arms control and the prospect of reducing arms expenditure rather than increasing it. There is a general feeling that the burden on the Soviet Union, as well as on Britain and other countries, is becoming too great. Therefore, the President's approach is, I believe, based on the fact that if possible we should endeavour to reduce arms expenditure. The President might want a shift in the form of expenditure, but that would be a matter for later detail. At any rate, it is on these lines that we should begin discussions.
Our stand on Rhodesia is well known, and the Foreign Secretary will be looking for any development that can arise out of that stand. He will be looking for ways in which he can make a break through. We, too, regret that the Kissinger proposals did not come to a successful conclusion but, alas—to use the right hon. Lady's phrase—so far they have not been acceptable to the people as a whole and we have to concentrate on this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which people?"] The people of Rhodesia as a whole. That was what

I understood the right hon. Lady referred to. The basic principle is that of majority rule, and Mr. Smith has indicated that he is ready for majority rule within two years. If he intends to keep to that, it is possible to come to agreement, and that is the principle that the Foreign Secretary will be exploring while he is there.
As for increased protectionism, what I had in mind here is that a number of less developed countries are in great difficulties over their balance of payments. Whether the commercial banks will be able to continue to lend to them is a matter of dispute. If not, there is no way in which these countries can balance their books—unless they can get to the super tranches of the IMF—without some degree of protectionism. That was what I meant when I said that new instruments or the development of existing instruments may be necessary.
As for protectionism by the United States, we did not go into details, but I did mention one or two industries, such as specialty steels, where we would regret an extension of American protectionism.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome his statement and congratulate him on the close personal accord that he obviously established with the new Administration?
Will the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking that he will not regard the eventual judgment by the New York authorities on landing rights for Concorde as a yardstick of British-American relationships, because those relationships are too important for that?
Will the Prime Minister give us his views, based on the talks that he had, about industrial and economic problems? What was the Prime Minister's reaction to the close and often critical questioning that he received at the hands of American Press and television, and did it reinforce his view of the appalling picture that this country has presented abroad in recent years?

The Prime Minister: While I pressed the matter of Concorde strongly and will continue to do so, I did try to put it against the background of our broader relationships, and it is right that we should continue to do that. But that in no way lessens our strong view that we


have treaty rights with the United States and that we do not expect them to be overridden.
As for the appalling picture presented by American television, it is appalling but it is not a true picture. It is a headline picture, and it is one that is sometimes culled by American correspondents living in West End bars who never see anything of what is going on in the rest of the country. I was interviewed by one of these correspondents and I formed an opinion of him.
I am bound to say that in other, more informed, circles there was a different and more informed opinion about the way in which this country has gone through a period in which it has lost its Empire. Admittedly we have an industrial system that needs regenerating—that is agreed on both sides of the House—but there is a real understanding of the way in which the British people are facing the issues. I hope that anyone who goes to America—from either side of the House—will do his best to redress that appalling picture.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity of raising with the President—particularly in view of his positive attitude to NATO—the problems about AWACs, particularly in view of our own special problems in respect of Nimrod and the special requirements for British purposes that it might meet?

The Prime Minister: I discussed this, but I prefer not to go into details this afternoon.

Mr. Amery: On protectionism, does the Prime Minister agree that the objections that are being raised to Concorde have the flavour of what might be called indirect protection of a kind with which we have been familiar on many occasions in the past? Did the Prime Minister—as I hope—press this point on the President?
On Rhodesia, is the Prime Minister aware that guidance that has been given to the Press indicates that the Foreign Secretary will be going on a familiarisation visit and that he will not be visiting Rhodesia? Since the whole problem centres around Rhodesia, would it not be a good thing if the cast met the Prince of Denmark?

The Prime Minister: I am not certain what underlies the attitude of the New York Port Authority towards Concorde, but we must take into account that there are genuine environmental fears. Some of them are misguided, but the environmentalists seem to be making the running.
It would not be fitting at this stage for a British Minister to visit Rhodesia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is still a colony of this country and it is in rebellion. If Mr. Smith wished to make arrangements to see my right hon. Friend, I am sure a meeting could be arranged.

Mr. Dalyell: Did my right hon. Friend discuss either in Washington or, more probably, in Ottawa the question of uranium supplies, which is bothering us and a number of our partners in the EEC?

The Prime Minister: We discussed this matter under the general heading of non-proliferation. It is a technical question which we need to examine with great care. A whole review of our policy With the United States is needed and we shall undertake it now. A number of important matters arise from it.

Mr. Townsend: Will the Prime Minister follow President Carter's example and speak out strongly and effectively against the threats to human rights in the Soviet Union, as anywhere else, or does he still feel prevented from doing so by the search for détente and agreement on strategic arms control?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I understand that question. I have made speeches on this subject and they are all on the record. President Carter understands that there is no need to make one's point a dozen times. Everyone knows where I, my right hon. Friends and this Administration stand. The hon. Gentleman may not know that, but he is slow in catching up with almost anything. On our approach to the Soviet Union, we have to adjust our tactics to what will get the best results for the people for whom we are concerned. That is our basic attitude, bearing in mind our concern for human rights and freedom.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will not go unnoticed in this country that his positive defence of


the Government's policies was in contrast to the statements of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, in another foreign country yesterday, which will assist misunderstandings of our policies by the Press in America and other countries?
Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of discussing with President Carter human rights in Chile—a country which America can influence a great deal because of its rôle in relation to Chile in the past? Are the Americans likely to apply pressure to get democracy re-established in Chile at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: In speeches overseas, I always take the view of Sir Winston Churchill who said that he attacked the Government relentlessly at home but defended it abroad. However, other times, other attitudes. It is all a matter of taste.
My hon. Friend asked about Chile. There was a more general discussion on the American attitude towards the Caribbean and South America. The extensive overlying American influence in that area is, in some ways, a matter of concern to the President. Although that influence cannot be removed, I think that he wishes to see it exerted beneficially. I do not want to go further than that at present.

Mr. Pattie: May I press the Prime Minister to say something about the AWACs and Nimrod project even though we accept that there are confidential aspects to it? Does he think that it would be a good idea if this country became more of an industrial satellite of the United States and lost our high-technology skills?

The Prime Minister: I have strong views on this subject, but as negotiations are going on, I do not want to endanger them by jumping the gun. I can, however, answer the hon. Gentleman's question in principle. I have no desire to see this country become an industrial satellite of the United States. Especially in regard to our maritime protection, we should, as far as possible, although by all means in partnership with our allies, be able to look after ourselves.

Dr. Bray: Did my right hon. Friend find any movement by the United States

on the UNCTAD proposals for a common fund?

The Prime Minister: It is a little difficult to define movement. For some months, especially before the election in America, United States policy was not utterly clear because of the imminence of the election. The new Administration have now pretty well reached a conclusion on their attitude and we should find it possible, as a result of their work, to reach a common conclusion between the EEC Nine and the United States.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome what he is reported to have said in the United States in support of the President's stand on human rights? Is he aware that in the five statements that he listed in a recent Written Answer as illustrating his attitude on this matter, he failed to make any criticism of the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Is he aware that if what he is reported to have said in the United States indicates that he is following President Carter's more robust stand, it will be welcomed on this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: We should try, even though we may not always succeed, to apply our standards and principles universally. I hope that in his pursuit of me on this subject, the hon. Gentleman will begin to extend the same condemnation to those areas of the world that have so far escaped his eagle eye.

Mr. Whitehead: I understand that while my right hon. Friend was in Ottawa there was some discussion with Premier Trudeau about the possibility of President Amin of Uganda coming to this country and that my right hon. Friend said that subsequent events, should that occur, would be a circus. What contingency plans did he discuss with Premier Trudeau should the clown actually get into the circus?

The Prime Minister: I think that we should try to keep President Amin a little off balance. I do not know that we should state our position so clearly that he will know what our response will be. I should prefer that he should wonder a little about what the position will be when he arrives. I can assure my hon. Friend that the possibility of


a visit by President Amin has not gone unnoticed.

Mr. Crouch: Did the question of this being a year of opportunity for a settlement in the Middle East come up in the Prime Minister's discussions with President Carter? Did the hon. Gentleman advance the idea that Britain, in conjunction with other EEC members, could offer much greater strength and initiative in helping to solve that problem?

The Prime Minister: This possibility was raised. The President indicated clearly that he was opening a debate in his reference to the possibility of legal frontiers that were different from defensible frontiers. He did not touch upon the future of the Palestinians on the West Bank. That is a different question to be considered later. The American Administration desire that, if possible, there should be an overall settlement, though I said that I did not think that much could happen before the Israeli elections and that any efforts would have to be concentrated in the second half of the year.
As far as our rôle and that of the EEC is concerned, there are different attitudes in the Middle East. President Sadat has always said to me that he would welcome a British presence, but I am not sure that it would be so welcome in other areas. We shall have to leave that matter until we are nearer a settlement—if we get to that stage this year. We would, of course, discharge our responsibility as a member of the UN Security Council if called upon to do so.
It is clear that the major influence in the Middle East, because of armaments supplies, finance and other matters, must rest with the United States, and Europe should not therefore attempt to pre-empt the United States but rather work in support of it.

Mr. Newens: In his discussions, did my right hon. Friend indicate that he supported President Carter's attitude on human rights, not merely in regard to East-West relations but also to the Third World in general? Did he have the opportunity to discuss military aid and arms supplies to Argentina and Brazil in the light of recent statements.

The Prime Minister: I answered a question a little while ago in general terms about South America and the Caribbean. There is little that I can add to what I then said. I am sure that President Carter, who is clear about these matters, would want to see the general principle that he has enunciated on human rights and individual freedom applied throughout the world irrespective of whether the régime be of the Right or of the Left. We discussed that particular matter.
I also made clear, as I have always done in this House and have sometimes been laughed at for my pains, that it is sometimes a little difficult to carry one's principles exactly into practice. I shall do my best to live up to them, but I shall not always succeed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In the discussions on trade, which no doubt formed a very important part of the Prime Minister's discussions with President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau, was there any common ground that it was wrong to undermine the position of a strategic industry in various Western countries in relation to the developing world? I refer particularly to textiles. Was there any common ground on the policy that the Governments of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom would take in the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and also the Tokyo Round?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, although it is of great importance. But the negotiations, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already started. I know that there is great concern in Ottawa as well as in the United States about this matter. I must warn the House that, as far as I know at the moment, the United States would prefer to see the Multi-Fibre Arrangement renegotiated without amendment. Therefore, we did not discuss it in detail, but there will obviously be great difficulties. We would like to see certain changes made in it this year.

Mr. Spriggs: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity of raising the question of unemployment among men and women aged between 45 and 55? If not, why not? What steps are the Government prepared to take to deal with this important problem?

The Prime Minister: I agree that this problem is as important as other problems that we discussed, but I cannot claim that we discussed this particular matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that there were certain limitations on our time. We did bend our attention to the overall problem of unemployment, particularly of young people. I shall take account of what my hon. Friend said in our preparations for later discussions.

Mr. Grylls: If what the Prime Minister said in Washington is true—that the standard of living of the British people has been deliberately reduced by the Labour Government over the last 18 months—will he confirm whether that was in the Labour Party's 1974 manifesto?

The Prime Minister: The Labour Party's manifesto said that we would earn our living and make sure that the balance of payments was put right after the disgraceful way in which it had been left by the Conservative Government. That meant that certain steps had to be taken, including reducing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Borrowing."]—including borrowing and reducing the money supply, which again was one of the worst features of the last Government. That has resulted—I was not able to explain it on American television in detail—in a reduction in the standard of life in Britain. I do not apologise for that. It is an essential condition for getting ourselves right and getting Britain out of the mess in which it has been for so long. We have been misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman and others and we shall be misunderstood. Nevertheless, we must fight our way through this problem. It is as much in the hon. Gentleman's interests as in anyone else's that we should do so.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Labour Members and, I should think, most people in the country appreciate the attitude that he and the Foreign Secretary have taken on human rights both in the Soviet Union and elsewhere and that we resent the attacks which have come from the Opposition on this matter? But that said, will he apply the same principles to Uganda as to elsewhere? Will he and did he express to the American President and the Canadian Prime Minister the indignation

of the British people at the breaches of human rights in Uganda and the possibility of the President of that country being allowed into Britain?

The Prime Minister: This matter came up in the course of discussions in Ottawa in particular, not so much in the United States, although the United States has had some controversy with President Amin. There was a great deal of interest shown in Ottawa. I am on record on Canadian television as making clear the position of the whole House and the great indignation that is felt in all parts of this country at what is happening in Uganda. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no doubt in the minds of Canadians about that matter. Indeed, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jamieson, went on television immediately afterwards and repeated what I had said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not unreasonable now to say that I shall call only two more questions from each side of the House.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the particular interest of the new American Administration's friendly relations with Japan, did President Carter make any comments on the growing trade problems between the European Community and that country?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter in detail, because we shall have an opportunity of doing so in May. Mr. Fukuda, the Japanese Prime Minister, will be going to Washington within a relatively short time. It was always in the back of our minds that the great productivity capacity of Japan involves a serious threat to some industries in other parts of the world.

Mr. Anthony Grant: When the Prime Minister, quite rightly, raised the dangers of protectionism with President Carter, did he assure the President that this country would be setting a good example in this respect? Did he assure him in particular that it was no part of the Government's policy to impose import controls?

The Prime Minister: No. I did not assure President Carter on either of those matters, because it would not have been strictly accurate to do so. I put it rather


the other way. I said that if the United States, which was under pressure, gave way to protectionism, I did not see how any other country, especially a country such as ours, could have a real answer to it, although we would all be going down the wrong road if we did it. I think that the result of the multilateral trade negotiations will to a great extent depend on how far we can ensure that there is a rapid rate of growth in the industrial world.
I think that this Government's position on protectionism is well known. We are ready to introduce protectionist practices where an industry which would otherwise be viable is being crushed out as a result of the recession. I think that is the case, for example, in one or two illustrations which I imagine hon. Members on both sides can think of. It would be foolish to deny ourselves that weapon, especially in relation to some of our industries.

Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister not treat too lightly the remarkable achievements of his visit to America and Canada, because he has done much to repair the damage which has unjustly been inflicted on Britain in speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition? It was about time that the record was put right, and my right hon. Friend has done it remarkably well.
When President Carter comes to Britain, will my right hon. Friend assure him that the anti-black minority in this House is confined to a tiny segment of the Tory Party and that the overwhelming majority of Members deplore all forms of apartheid and colour bar?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said. I do not think that there will be any difference between the attitude of the American Administration and ourselves on apartheid. I hope that our attitude is universally shared in this House.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is a very worrying fact that the real position of this country is so distorted abroad. We have got into a trend now in which everything which is wrong is headlined and everything which is good is put down at the bottom of the page. In the old days we could

afford the self-denigration factor. We cannot afford it any longer. We are fighting for our lives. Therefore, I think that it is beholden on all of us to try to give a fair representation of this country's position.

Mr. Wiggin: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that the future of Rhodesia should be decided by the people of that country. But is it not a contradiction in terms that the Foreign Secretary should go to Southern Africa and consult everybody but those same people? Did the Prime Minister discuss with President Carter the substantial olive branch which Mr. Smith extended in response to the Kissinger proposals and which should and must immediately be recognised by this Government?

The Prime Minister: I realise that there is a move for it but I do not think that it is necessarily something that my right hon. Friend should do at present on his visit, although it is for him to take a decision on it. There may be later opportunities for meetings. I would not rule that out at all. There are some indications of movement by Mr. Smith, but he will have to move pretty fast if he is to live up to the declared intention to introduce majority rule within a period of two years, and the more signs we can see of that—although Mr. Smith has his difficulties, which I understand—the better prospects there will be of coming to a peaceful solution. Otherwise, the guerrilla war will intensify.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: Unless there is objection, I shall put the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the draft County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences) (Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) (Amendment) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 361) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES)

4.11 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the letting of residential properties on fixed terms; and for purposes connected therewith.
I am seeking the leave of the House to reintroduce the Bill which I introduced last Session, to give effect to the concept of shorthold tenancies.
I should like to begin by making it clear that I am not seeking to end security of tenure for any sitting tenant, nor for the majority of new tenancies, but to provide a reasonable legal framework under which people with premises suitable for letting for periods of a year or more, and people looking for houses or flats for a similar period, can reach an agreement that is fair and comprehensible to both parties and can be properly supervised by the appropriate authority. I am not seeking simply to revive the old leasehold concept, but to introduce something new, which will include a series of safeguards for the tenant which I hope will be sufficient to end any possibility of exploitation or abuse. I can give the House a list of these safeguards, and I would certainly be prepared to add to them in the light of constructive suggestions by hon. Members which would improve the Bill.
First, I would insist that a shorthold tenancy must only be created at the fair rent. The subject of fair rents is under discussion as a result of the Government's recent discussion paper; but I am not seeking in any way to enter that controversy. Like its predecessor, this Bill would only permit shorthold tenancies at the fair rent.
I would also insist that the premises must be at least equal to the standard set for discretionary improvement grants. That of course is a better standard than the minimum laid down by the Public Health Acts, and I recognise that it would have the effect of limiting the range of types of property for which shorthold leases could be created; but I think that we need to be certain that we are not going to bring on to the market premises

which are not really habitable or of a minimum desirable standard.
I would provide that the sitting short-holder should have the first claim on any extension of the tenancy if the owner decided to offer the premises for letting again when the period of the shorthold came to an end. I would insist that the rent officer should be satisfied that both parties were aware of their rights before they signed. I should also like to provide that the rent officer should publish a list of premises which had been inspected and were considered suitable for shorthold letting: the list should certainly be open to public inspection. I would not object if the rent officer had the right to enter premises during the course of a tenancy in order to ensure that the property was being maintained at a reasonable standard.
I should like to make provision to cover the taking of deposits to make sure that there would be no possibility of exploitation there, or in regard to rent in advance; and also to provide for minimum notice periods. I consider that the shorthold contract should also provide a clear division of responsibility in regard to maintenance and repairs.
Many hon. Members in all quarters of the House and many experts outside have told me that they see merit in a reform on the' lines of my Bill, but I am certainly prepared to improve it or to change it. What I am seeking to do is to give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the idea in detail and, I hope, in an uncontroversial atmosphere.
I would be happy to add further protection for the shorthold tenant. For instance, I know that it would be in line with the thinking of the Department if one were actually to define the cases in which the owner could resume possession. I have not sought to do so in the Bill, because to my mind such a provision could tend to limit its range of application too much; but I would not hestitate to seek a compromise along these lines and I hope that the Department will be so good as to let me have specific recommendations that might be included in the Bill.
I would also be prepared to consider the possibility that the scheme might be applied only in certain areas where the problems of vacant properties and homelessness live glaringly side by side. This


is a particluar problem of Kensington and other parts of inner London, but I think that it applies in other inner urban areas in the country as well and that my Bill could have a useful general application.
I think that it is not denied that we now have a surplus of houses even in the housing stress areas, yet we have an increasing problem of homelessness and the very vexatious problem of squatting. I believe that squatting is often carried out by people who would be willing to enter into a proper form of lease and who could afford to pay at least the fair rent if they had the opportunity to do so.
But landlords are undoubtedly afraid of letting property which would be suitable to provide homes for periods of months or years, or, indeed, for many years. I believe that they would not be so afraid if they could have the confidence that when the time came that they needed to resume possession there would not be too much difficulty in their doing so.
The House has a duty to study this problem in the interests of common sense and also of humanity. I reject the view of hon. Members who feel that, rather than make any infringement at all on the principle of security of tenure, it would be better for people seeking accommodation to remain where they now are. I believe that it would be wrong for the House to take a stand on that ideal, when further research might show that a limited area of reform could bring great benefits.
I cannot calculate whether there might be hundreds of thousands of premises

which would be brought on to the market as a result of the passing of a Bill on these lines, or whether it would be only tens of thousands. But even if it were only tens of thousands, it would be right for the House to make progress in that direction. I recognise that there are difficulties, and they will have to be overcome by meticulous study of the facts. Chairman Mao once said that to investigate a problem was to solve it. I think that this is a problem which the House can and ought to solve.
I trust, therefore, that the House will allow me to reintroduce my Bill, and thereby give hon. Members who are interested in housing problems the opportunity to go into the idea more fully. I hope also that the Bill may proceed at least to the Committee stage before this Session ends.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Michael Shersby and Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.

HOUSING (SHORTHOLD TENANCIES)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the letting of residential properties on fixed terms; and for purposes connected therewith. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second Time upon Friday 22nd April and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Schedule 2

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 82, leave out lines 18 to 30.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I do not wish to be very much longer than the Minister of State, but in expressing a general welcome for the amendments that he has proposed we wish to make quite clear that our attitude to this legislation has in no way changed. In no way do we think that the Bill will do anything to help the shipbuilding industry to face the problems of contraction. Neither will the Bill contribute anything to solving the problems of the aircraft industry. The aircraft industry is one of our most successful industries, and the Bill will do it nothing but harm.
Having said that, we have to examine our attitude to the Government's concessions in the light of the Parliament Act hanging over the Bill. It seems that the choice open to us is between further delay in seeing all the companies included in the Bill nationalised, including the 12 ship-repairing companies, or, alternatively, the quick passage of the Bill minus the 12 ship-repairing companies encompassed in the Lords amendments.
It is a sad choice with which to be faced, but I think that the likelihood of the Bill's becoming law through the Parliament Act means that we must accept the Lords Amendments. The Government have not removed all ship-repairing activities with their

amendments. I regret that they have not made it 13 companies instead of 12. We regret that the Government were unable to see their way to excluding Vosper Thorny-croft's ship-repairing business.

Mr. Speaker: This is a very opportune moment for me to tell the House that we are able to discuss—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) was about to discuss—only the companies included in the amendments. Regrets, fears and anxieties about any companies that are not included in the amendments would be completely out of order.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a question of equity between those who are left out of the Bill and those who are not. Would not any consideration of the amendments require us to consider equity?

Mr. Speaker: I fear not. All that the House is called upon to do today is to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments. It is only the Lords amendments, not what ought to be in them, that we have to discuss.

Mr. Lamont: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, the consequence of the amendments will be that people who intended to petition against the legislation will no longer be able to do so. The amendments therefore have certain consequences for certain interests, in that some people will no longer be able to make the case that they expected to be able to make. Is it not possible to refer in any way to those people who feel that their rights will have been affected by the amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I fear not. I have to rule firmly on this. We must keep to the contents of the Lords amendments. We cannot widen the discussion.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assume that it is in order to address ourselves to the implications of removing the ship-repairing industry from the Bill, in accordance with the Lords amendments. Surely that would be in order.

Mr. Speaker: What is in order is to discuss the contents of the Lords amendments. Nothing else is in order. We have


had our wider discussions on the broader issues, and so has another place.

Mr. Lamont: Of course we accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and it is clear what we cannot discuss. We have made clear from the beginning that we think that ship repairing is and always was an industry particularly unsuited to nationalisation. It is an industry dependent on speed in doing its work and on service. Many of the companies that were to be nationalised had only a small number of employees, sometimes fewer than 100.
We welcome the fact that the Government have at last shown reasonableness and a little accommodation. If only we could have had these qualities earlier, the Government could have had their Bill earlier. We have now spent a very large part of Parliament's time on this legislation. The Bill was first introduced in 1974 and has spanned no fewer than three Sessions of Parliament.
Despite the concessions offered by the Opposition, the Government decided to press on with the Bill, to their own disadvantage and to the disadvantage of everybody else. They have been more concerned not to lose face than with the consequences for industry. That is why few measures have ever got into such a mess as this Bill.
The Government have blamed the Lords for the delay, yet sometimes it appeared that the Government themselves were not so unwilling to see a delay. At other times we wondered what was the reason for the rush, because the Government have not been able to decide where the headquarters of the new nationalised shipbuilding industry ought to be. If they cannot decide that, we wonder what right they have to complain about the delay.
The delay has not been the fault of the House of Lords, which is one institution which has emerged from the story with considerable credit. Had it not been for the House of Lords, there would have been no opportunity for the Examiners to determine that the Bill was a hybrid Bill, which the Government had denied. This was not just a diverting parliamentary ploy, as the Secretary of State for Industry once called it. It was an important matter of principle and practice. It was quite wrong that the Government should have tried to use their slim

majority to set aside procedures that have been long established to protect the liberties of individuals.
We do not like the proposals in the Bill. We do not like nationalisation. Nevertheless, we wish to make clear that we wish the two corporations success and we hope that the Government's dealings with them will be dominated by a little less dogma than their handling of this Bill.

Mr. Thorne: I understand from Mr. Speaker's ruling that we are addressing ourselves to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the first of which refers to taking out of the Bill the list of ship-repairing companies. As a consequence, ship repairing is removed from the Bill. I am one of those who prefer to see that happen rather than to see any further delay in the public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. On that ground, I and many of my colleagues accept the situation with which we are faced. The sooner the job is done, the better.
I wish to make two or three points which, I hope will be in order on the basis of Mr. Speaker's ruling. They arise from the deletion of the ship-repairing companies which will therefore not be nationalised. If any of these ship-repairing companies run into difficulties in future, they might apply to the Department of Industry for financial support for their undertakings. As a consequence, public funds will be made available to them. I hope that it will be possible for the Secretary of State for Industry to indicate that in that event we should reconsider our whole approach to providing public funds, particularly to firms that have indicated their opposition to public ownership. If these companies are to receive any public funds, ways should be found to provide public accountability in respect of those funds. Clearly, the best way of doing that is what was envisaged when the Bill was drawn up, namely, public ownership.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said something about what would happen to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries after the Bill was passed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that a major building operation is required in both industries, and that there


are major employment problems, particularly for the aircraft industry. Many of my constituents are workers in that industry, and it will be necessary, immediately following the establishment of the two corporations, for discussions to be held with the trade union movement to determine what urgent steps should be taken to prevent a likely contraction of the work force.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend can give that sort of undertaking if it is appropriate and in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have been considering the line being developed by the hon. Gentleman. It is not in order to pursue that line during discussion of the three Lords amendments.

Mr. Thorne: In view of that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall draw my remarks to a close merely by welcoming the fact that at last the aircraft and shipbuilding industries will be taken into public ownership.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Two things need to be said at this final stage in the passage of the Bill. The first is that the Lords have done exactly what they said they would do and not what the Government accuse them of doing. The Lords said that they passed the amendments to remove ship repairing so as to take out the hybridity in the Bill. The Government denied that and accused the House of Lords of delaying the legislation. Had the House of Lords wanted to do more than remove the hybridity, it would have been at liberty to remove the ship-repairing activities of companies included under the shipbuilding provisions, but it did not.
The second point concerns an event which passed unnoticed in the Press at the time, though it should not have done so, because it is the reason we have these amendments before us today. We had similar amendments before us on Tuesday 7th December. They failed to pass by two votes on that occasion because three Liberal Members—the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—failed to vote with their colleagues for those amendments that day. Had those amendments been carried, the Bill would have left

this House for the House of Lords with the hybrid element removed. The Lords would not then have had to—

Mr. Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the ruling from the Chair, is the matter now being raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I have heard the hon. Member, he has been in order, and I am sure that he will stay in order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am explaining why it is desirable in my view that we should agree with the House of Lords in these amendments, which is the Question before the House.
The amendments are necessary because of the decision that the House took on Tuesday 7th December when three Liberal Members failed to vote with their colleagues and with the Conservatives, the SNP, the Welsh nationalists and the, for once appropriately called, United Ulster Unionists. In fact, the entire Opposition and some Members of the Government supported the amendments.
Because of that decision the House of Lords had to spend 27 days in hearings and devote to the Bill a lot of legislative time, a process which otherwise would not have been necessary. That being the case, we can now repair the omission by those three Liberal Members by adopting these amendments, which I therefore commend to the House.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I intervene only briefly, but since this group of amendments affects many of my constituents directly, it is only right for me to seek certain assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister of State before we agree to the Lords amendments.
I am referring, of course, to the exclusion of the ship-repairing companies, many of which are in my constituency. A large number of my constituents—the largest single group of workers in my constituency—work for those companies. May I have an assurance that three companies which employ my constituents—Brigham and Cowan Ltd., the Mercantile Dry Dock Co. Ltd., and the


Middle Docks and Engineering Company Ltd., all of which form part of North-East Coast Ship Repairers Limited and which are already in public ownership—will be taken into the new public holding company?

Mr. Kaufman: indicated assent.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May we therefore have an assurance that there will be no delay in these companies developing projects that are eagerly anticipated by the men in those yards who are anxious to make their full contribution to this activity?
Another ship-repair company is mentioned in this list. It is Swan Hunter Ship Repairers Tyne Limited, which has a yard in my constituency. That firm is of course related to the Swan Hunter shipbuilding company and I am not clear whether the repair company will be taken into the holding company.
Finally, I wish to make clear that my constituents regret that it has been necessary to accept the amendment, as they had hoped that the Bill would go forward in its original version.

Mr. Kaufman: May I assist my hon. Friend? The three subsidiaries of North-East Coast Ship Repairers will be transferred to the corporation. Swan Hunter Ship Repairers Tyne Limited will be excluded by the amendments. If that company, however, wishes to discuss with the Department of Industry the acquisition by British Shipbuilders of Swan Hunter Ship Repairers Tyne Limited on suitable terms, we shall be glad to discuss it with the company as we are already discussing the matter with three other companies that are excluded from the list and that have approached us with a view to being acquired.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I support the Lords in their amendments. The fact that the resultant Bill is a shabby compromise lacking any principle is no fault of the Opposition. There is nothing further that one can say without going beyond the rules of order.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OFFICIAL REPORT (PRINTING)

4.40 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I should intimate that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment which has been submitted.

Mr. Foot: I begin by apologising to the House for not having been able to be present when the motion which is now on the Order Paper was previously debated. I have, however, carefully read the debate that occurred on that occasion and have taken into account what was said. I hope that hon. Members, especially those who have put their names to the amendment, will have found my hon. Friends' answer published in Hansard on 9th March useful in helping them understand why the Services Committee has asked the House to endorse its recommendation.
I think that this, and the Answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), answers the criticism in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The existing parliamentary Press is, in the Government's—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As some of us have, unfortunately, not had the opportunity of looking at those Answers closely, can my right hon. Friend say what the Answers are because they will determine our attitude to this matter?

Mr. Foot: I hope to cover that point in my remarks. I fully understand what my hon. Friend says. Part of them dealt with the question of consultation. There was some criticism that some Officers of the House had not been fully consulted. I think it will be found that consultation did take place. There were also sonic questions relating to cost. I shall touch further on these aspects of the matter in my brief remarks. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and other hon. Members, will agree that the matter has been properly dealt with.
The existing parliamentary Press is, in the Government's view, obsolescent and unable to cope with the increasing demands that Parliament makes upon it. As the House knows, the Government decided that the machinery must be replaced as soon as possible, probably within about two years. This debate is therefore different from the earlier one on experimental changes in our printing arrangements designed to achieve savings and a better service to hon. Members. It may assist the House if I said a brief word about those experiments now because it might help hon. Members to come to a view on the motion now before us.
The 9 p.m. cut-off time for the marshalling of printed amendments, which was discussed on the previous occasion, seems to have met with general success and the printers have certainly found it a great help. The change in the format for added names to Early-Day Motions has, however, not been welcomed with such open arms and criticism has been such that I propose to ask the Services Committee to re-examine the experiment as soon as possible. Taking into account the representations from the House, my view is that the House will probably wish to abandon the experiment. At any rate, it was introduced as an experiment and hon. Members have had an opportunity of putting their views.
Some hon. Members may wish to refer to the matter again during the debate, although it is not the direct question under debate. The debate on today's motion starts from a different standpoint. There has to be a change in machinery in any case and it is for the House to take this opportunity to move to a standard sized paper. Initially, it is proposed to use it for Hansard reports of debates on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committees. Standardising to A4 would give the most advantages. It would mean that the number of pages printed would be reduced by over 25 per cent. thereby saving production time and giving a more efficient service. Standardisation would mean that fewer printing machines would be needed, and they would be cheaper and easier to instal and run. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has estimated that there would be a capital saving of about £182,000 if machines were geared to A4, not to mention substantial savings in running costs.
I notice that some hon. Members size of the saving during the last debate but I must say that it would be unwise for the House to criticise savings in public money of whatever I do not think that £182,000 is insignificant.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman that I was unable to be in my place when he began his speech. Does he not agree that the true net saving from A4 is considerably less than £182,000? If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about savings per annum in manpower, then the savings are certainly remarkably high according to the Written Answer that I received on Monday. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it appears that it would take three times as much manpower to standardise to A5 as to standardise to A4? The normal printed Hansard size falls between A4 and A5 but is much nearer A5. These figures seem to be remarkable and need checking up.

Mr. Foot: I cannot check the figures on the spot, but I have them in front of me. Certainly those are the figures that have been produced by my hon. Friend's Department, and they are the figures on which we have been working. It was on that basis that we have recommended that this would be the saving that would be achieved. If there is any further information to be devised about A5 compared with A4, and the £256,000 savings compared with the £87,000 in manpower costs per annum, I shall certainly look at the matter since the hon. Gentleman has raised it. But these are the figures as we have them. I therefore think it is correct to say that there is no reason why we should doubt the claim about the general saving to which I have referred.
The A4 size has the highest savings on both counts according to the reckonings we have made. Nor do I accept one of the points made by some hon. Members in the debate that the A4 size is more inconvenient and clumsy. It would mean much slimmer volumes. I personally find that the present daily volume is not so easy to open and read.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) maintained that he could read the present size in bed but would find A4 difficult. All I can say is that I can


read The Spectator quite happily in bed. I would not recommend it on all occasions, but in some respects I find it easier to read than reading the present Hansard.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend must be aware that many of us would agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that the present size is a most useful size. It can be carried around in one's pocket and it can be extracted very easily when one wants it. A larger Hansard of the kind envisaged would be much more cumbersome.
We may save money to the Government but what about all the bookshelves that will need to be changed? We should have to change Members' bookshelves and those in the Libraries. There will be extra cost all round in other directions. There will be costs in this House if bookshelves have to be altered and so on. We shall find that the savings will have to be weighed against a much higher cost all round for other people.

Mr. Foot: Obviously, these are some of the questions which have been in the minds of hon. Members and were raised in the previous debate. On the question of convenience, I think that the new size is more convenient than the older one, but, as I said before, it is a matter of taste. How easy it is to get the present Hansard into one's pocket depends on the size of one's pocket and I do not believe that it is so easy after all. I believe that the new form will be found in many respects more convenient. That is one reason why we advocate it and why the Committee advocated it.
Moreover, the Committee went into many of these difficulties. We do not accept that one would have to change the size of shelves to store the Hansards or that that would be a countervailing charge which would reduce the advantage of the Services Committee's proposal.
I, too, think that we should take into account some other aspect of the matter. We should think for a moment about those—our secretaries, civil servants and librarians—who face the unenviable job of taking endless copies from Hansard. Apart from the fact that they would be greatly helped by a slimmer volume, most photocopiers and reproducing paper are

now in A4 size. It is true that some bookshelves may need adjustment, but most shelving is adjustable anyway.
I have made inquiries and I understand that the Officers of the House involved—the Clerk, the Librarian, the Editor of Hansard and the Deliverer of the Vote—were all consulted. I am told that although any change in size would inevitably involve some adjustment of shelving, they have no objections to a change in form should it be desirable for other reasons.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, for all his generosity, has a pocket quite as large as the proposed new size. He is quite right in what he says about adjustable shelving from the point of view of height, and most libraries will take Hansard, keeping the modern ones on display and storing the others. But to put copies of Hansard of the new size on shelves will mean tremendous alterations in an enormous number of public libraries, if not in this House.

Mr. Foot: I did not say that the new size would be more convenient to put in one's pocket. I said that whether the present Hansard was convenient depended on the size of the pocket. There is some difficulty in putting the present Hansard in one's pocket. The new one is a larger size, but it can be folded more easily and has advantages in the way in which it can be opened. So there are countervailing advantages in the new form.
All these factors were taken into account by the Committee which examined the matter and made the recommendation to the Services Committee, and were included among the reasons why the Services Committee accepted them.
As for the alteration in the size of shelves, it is true that other libraries than our own could be affected by the change. However, I think that we would all acknowledge that the hon. Member who dealt with this matter in the interests of the House was right to take into account what was said by the Librarian of the House. However, the House itself is entitled to make the judgment of what is best for its own use in years to come. While some adjustment may be needed,


it would not be necessary to make anything like the major changes that some people have suggested.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman not distinguish more clearly between the two separate issues involved here? The first is whether the size of all parliamentary papers should be standardised on the same size of equipment. There are savings flowing from that, which no hon. Member has challenged. But the second issue is the question of on which size they should be standardised. On that, there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House that the new proposal is wrong. From the Written Answer to which I alluded earlier, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if everything were standardised on the present size of Hansard and there was no change, the capital saving would amount to £360,000 and the manpower saving to £87,000 per annum, on the Minister's own figures. Would the right hon. Gentleman not be content with that as a compromise, rather than flying in the face of articulated opinion on both sides of the House?

Mr. Foot: I fully accept that the representations of the hon. Member and of my hon. Friends have to be taken into account. That is why the matter is submitted to the House and there is to be a free vote whether we should proceed with these proposals. The various alternatives were carefully considered by the Sub-Committee which dealt with this problem and then by the Services Committee. It is on that basis that this course has been recommended to the House.
Returning to the comparison of sizes, although each page of the new size would carry more words, the lay-out would be redesigned for ease of reference. There need be no worry on that score. A specimen was attached to the Select Committee's Report and I personally found the suggested arrangements clear and helpful.
As I said, this is a matter on which the House must make up its own mind, but I would ask hon. Members to support the Select Committee's recommendations and allow Her Majesty's Stationery Office to replace its obsolescent equipment with machinery which will not only let it take full advantage of modern

machinery and technology, to everyone's benefit, but will also make available a cheaper and more efficient service.
In my opinion—I believe that it is also the overwhelming view of hon. Members who have had the advantage of all the services we get from HMSO—the Stationery Office is one of the most efficient bodies in the world for assisting a Parliament. We should do everything in our power to ensure that that standard of service to hon. Members is sustained in years to come.
It is on that basis that we have looked to the future to decide how we may best make use of the new arrangements which are available to make the choices that we have to make for the future. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who does great service to the House and spends many hours in devoted service to ensuring the best operation of the House, chaired the Sub-Committee which made the recommendation to the Services Committee. The latter believed that that recommendation deserved full backing, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman outlined.
There is no question of something being foisted on us by the Stationery Office. The matter has been considered by hon. Members who were charged with the task of considering what recommendations should he made to the House.

Mr. Heffer: They have made some bad decisions in the past.

Mr. Foot: They may have made some mistaken decisions in the past but I believe that in the main the services of the Stationery Office to this House are of a high standard and that this motion will ensure that that service is sustained in future and that we shall make the best use of the facilities which will be available. I hope that on that basis the House will be prepared to accept the motion.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I sat on the Committee which considered this matter. I began with the firm conclusion that changing the shape and size of Hansard would be wrong. However, I was completely convinced on the evidence given that it was essential to go over to the new size. One of the main reasons which convinced me was not only the new machinery, which will


undoubtedly cheapen the process of printing. Several times in the past, papers have been delayed by strikes and so on. The men in that department are under constant pressure because of obsolete machinery and because of their conditions. I was convinced that by altering the size, and accepting the other recommendations, we should give them a far better chance of turning out a good job.
I support the Leader of the House in saying how much work my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) has done, and paying tribute to the meticulous care which he has taken in going into this difficult problem. Although I have been a Member for only 12 years, I realise that we do not like altering the size or shape of something which we have become used to. I, too, have bound volumes of Hansard and I should have to adapt my shelves for the new volumes. But for the sake of generations to come in this House, it is essential that we adopt the recommendation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I repeat for the benefit of the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of Question and to add instead thereof:
declines to agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their First Report since no Report concerning the proposed changes of printing arrangements for Parliament has been made available to this House; and calls upon the Services Committee to provide more comprehensive information, including evidence taken from the Officers of the House before presenting a further Report".
I am sure that it is only because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) did not expect the earlier business to collapse so soon that he is not here. I am sorry about that, because I am sure that he feels even more strongly on this than some of the rest of us do and would speak more forcibly on the subject. But I have some points to make about it.
The proposal comes from the Services Committee. That body has given us the car park, and the canopy over the Member's entrance, which cost about £28,000—or perhaps it was £18,000; it

was certainly a preposterous sum of money. It is the body which has erected the two notices down on the Interview Floor—quite cheap at the price, a couple of hundred pounds, for a few bits of chipboard made into hexagonal boxes. It is the body which has authorised the payment of slightly more than £1,000 for redecoration of what used to be one of the television rooms upstairs. That room has become a sort of mixture of the private room of the Chairman of the Accommodation Sub-Committee and a room for use by the Accommodation Sub-Committee itself, masquerading under the notice "House of Commons Records Room", when it is nothing of the kind.
Therefore, a recommendation from the Services Committee as a whole, or from the Accommodation Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, does not carry very great weight with me, particularly regarding the saving or spending of money. The Services Committee has a rotten record on the spending of money, and we should not pay it much regard.
This recommendation is one of two which came out of the same stable. The other one, which has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Lord President, touched upon procedural points as well as Services Committee points. Yet the Services Committee did not see fit to ensure that one of our two procedural committees, at least, was consulted on the matter before bringing it before the House. This matter does not touch upon the responsibilities of the procedural committees very much. Nevertheless, I think that it would have been right for the Sessional Committee on Procedure to be given an opportunity to comment upon it.
I think that the examples of the new format which we have been given are quite attractive, not because of the size of the page but because the typography seems to be clearer than it is at present. I do not know whether different type faces or spaces have been used, but it seems quite attractive and it is clearer than our present format. I am not prepared to say that, given a chance, this format would not be entirely acceptable to the House in time. But I do not feel that a case has been made out for the change.
Will this size be used for statutes of the Realm? Does anyone know the answer


to that question? Is it suggested that statutes should be printed upon this size of paper?

Mr. Lawson: It is clear that that is indeed the intention. The whole point is to standardise all parliamentary papers—statutes, Standing Committees, Select Committees, Hansard, the Vote, everything. That is where the figure for the economies comes from, including, as the hon. Gentleman says, statutes of the Realm.

Mr. Cunningham: It would be interesting to have an authoritative answer on that. I do not want to be disrespectful to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and the Chairman of the Services Committee are present. Is it proposed that statutes should be printed on this size of paper?

Mr. Robert Cooke: The House is being asked to approve a report which relates only to Hansard. It is true that possible savings in printing other parliamentary papers on the size mentioned in the report relating to Hansard are being considered, but there is no question of the House being asked to decide anything beyond Hansard this afternoon. Should there be any proposal to proceed any further on other papers, the House would be asked to approve or disapprove that.

Mr. Cunningham: That sounds a cock-eyed way to proceed. We are supposed to be doing this for the purpose of standardisation and saving money. Yet we are told "You must look at this one and later we shall come to you for a decision about the others". I do not see how statutes can be printed on this size of paper. If they were printed across the page, the lines would be too long. I doubt very much whether the House would wish to see statutes printed on two columns of the page. That ought to have been sorted out.
If we are to take a real look at the matter, we must look at it altogether. I should not have thought that the House would wish to see statutes printed on this size of paper. This all suggests to me that the matter has not been gone into sufficiently, and it should be taken back and looked at properly by the Services Committee and the Sessional Committee

on Procedure. I think that there is enough of a procedural content in this matter for it to be taken back.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I apologise to the Leader of the House for not being here when he introduced the debate. We started it so soon that I anticipate that it implies that we might have a thin Hansard on this occasion. I do not share in the strictures of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on the Services Committee, although I feel that we could have a slightly more economical entrance. I enjoy sheltering under it when it rains. I think that perhaps the Committee could make quicker progress to provide accommodation which could begin to be regarded as reasonable to do the work which we are called upon to do.
I, too, have some doubts about the merits of this recommendation. I declare what is not really an interest, but I suppose it is relevant and it is on the register of interests. I am a director of a printing company which uses the kind of technology that it is suggested we ought to use. The firm carries out work for Her Majesty's Stationery Office. But I am not suggesting that we should obtain the contract for printing Hansard. The important point is the need to change the method of printing Hansard to use modern technology and modern machinery. It seems particularly appropriate to use a web off-set printing press for this sort of job.
I wonder whether the alternatives we are being asked to consider are the full range. For instance, the web machinery is suitable for printing A5 as well as A4. But A5 is somewhat smaller than the present size of Hansard. We could consider printing on A5, using only a single column instead of the double one with which we are familiar. That might prove easier to read and considerably more economical in paper. I am sure that a Hansard that was slightly smaller rather than larger than the present one would be much easier to use. That is at least one of the alternatives we should consider before we commit ourselves.
Another alternative is to commission a special web press. Bearing in mind the volume of paper for the production of which we are responsible, I believe that


that would be an economical possibility. It would give us the opportunity of printing almost any size of Hansard we wished.
Equally, a variety of sizes could be produced. In the same way as one can use a press to produce A4 and A5 papers, one could use a special press to produce a range of sizes. As I understand it—and I should stress that I am no expert on printing—the greater part of the savings which we are being asked to make possible can be derived from the use of more modern machinery. A certain amount of saving obviously flows from economies in the use of paper, and I suggest that the biggest economy there could probably come from having a single column width instead of two columns. There would be a saving in margins, because at present there is an extra margin down the middle of every page, and we should remove the greater problem of justifying such short lines, involving complications which are not normal in book publishing.
For those reasons, I am inclined to support the amendment that the matter be further considered. I do so somewhat hesitatingly, because I agree that we want to make progress, and it is clearly unacceptable to go on printing Hansard on such obsolescent machinery, incurring much higher costs than there would be if we switched to new machinery. But I wonder whether it is possible to consider some of the other alternatives before we are committed. Perhaps we may have them presented to us so that everyone may see the various formats available before we reach a decision. I shall be interested to hear what the Chairman of the Committee has to say about that suggestion.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is very good in procedural matters, for moving the amendment so ably. The House is indebted to him. Owing to the unusual speed with which this business came upon us, I, too, did not hear what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. It was no doubt brief and, as always, to the point.
The amendment does not say that we disagree with the recommendation or that ultimately we shall not have the A4 size for a new Hansard. It says that more information should be available, and it is therefore entirely in line with what the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has said. The information in the Select Committee Report, which was first discussed in unusual circumstances on 18th January, is very brief. Although it may appear at first sight that the question of the size of Hansard is a piffling administrative matter, it is very important. Hanging on our decision is the whole question of the re-equipment of the press and the format in which not only Hansard but ultimately the other parliamentary papers are produced.
For anybody who takes a high view of Parliament, as I know my right hon. Friend does, the nature, production, distribution and format of parliamentary papers is very important, not only for the House but for the public as a whole. It is clear that when radio comes into this Chamber the demand for certain parliamentary papers will increase. That may be healthy for democracy, although I should add that I voted against radio coming into the Chamber.
We have heard some technical points from the lion. Member for Hove. If there is to be a new plant, new opportunities may arise for the transmission of magnetic tapes to other places in the country or throughout the world, where copies can be made. Some of us recently saw some exhibitions of micro-film in the House. It is possible to put a whole volume on one film and send it through the post. No doubt there will be opportunities for indexing and other matters related to the printing of Hansard. If there are to be changes in the method of printing Hansard, the Services Committee might have given the House more information about all those matters, which would clearly follow if we approved its recommendations. Although we are ostensibly discussing the possible A4 size for Hansard, there is more to the matter if we pass the recommendation.
We are also discussing by implication the size of other parliamentary papers. We may need some rationalisation. Three sizes may not be convenient for the press, but, as the hon. Member for Hove said,


there is the alternative of A5. If we cannot have the existing size, it may be that half the A4 size—namely, A5—is more convenient. We need more information about that. We must consider the convenience of other users. Hon. Members have shown that they would prefer the present size, but there are others who use Hansard. We must consider the people who deliver it, the Post Office itself, and those in various places who read it.
The House should not spend too long on this matter, although it is one of some importance, so I come to my final point, which concerns the way in which my right hon. Friend, the Government and the Services Committee have approached the House. If they had presented the full facts, if they had come forward with a full report together with the views of Officers of the House and the memorandum from the Stationery Office, the recommendations might well have gone through, but they did not choose to do so.
Moreover, when the House was asked to approve the recommendation on 18th January there was no speech by the mover of the motion. There was an attempt to get it through on the nod. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least admit that that was unfortunate. I hope that he will think again and agree that the matter brings into court a whole variety of considerations which may or may not have been considered by the Services Committee. We do not know. I hope that he will accept the amendment or say that if it is withdrawn he will see whether the Services Committee will reconsider the matter.
We know that the Services Committee had to take account not only of the mechanical side but of the human side of printing, which is very important. We all understand the human organisations involved in the printing industry. We have had a heavy reminder in the past fortnight.
On hearing the opinions of the House, the Services Committee might like to have another look at the question. So often many of us in public life are told by officials and others who come before us that we must take certain action, that we must save money and that the action must be taken now or all the savings will

be lost. When anybody gives me that sort of advice I become a little cynical and ask to look at it twice. I hope that the House will look at the matter twice. If my right hon. Friend cannot accept our moderate amendment, which does not throw out the idea but says that we want more information, I hope that he will at least withdraw his motion, so that the Services Committee—which serves the needs of the House and in general has the confidence of the House—may produce more information and we may have another look at the matter.

5.19 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who has done an enormous amount of work on the Services Committee in regard to not only this matter but other matters. The House is grateful to him.
But on this point I am equally grateful to those responsible for the amendment, because it allows the House to enlarge slightly on the original business. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). We are discussing, first, the question of the efficiency of the Hansard service, how we can best provide a good service, with a Hansard that is easily readable and acceptable to the House. It involves the use of modern techniques and up-to-date machinery.
The point involving a single column of Hansard on each page is worth considering. It is extremely difficult for many people to take in half a column and it would facilitate the reading exercise if Hansard were to read right across the page. The simple removal of the middle margin would probably result in a great saving in paper. For reference purposes the use of one column per page of Hansard would have enormous advantages.
Unfortunately, the remit of the Services Committee did not allow it to consider the fact that this change in Hansard may be the precursor of a change in other parliamentary documents. There is a case for the standardisation of all parliamentary documents from the point of view of economy as well as in terms of storage and for other reasons. This would probably result in considerable savings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said that on this occasion we were dealing only with the question of deciding the size of Hansard, although he gave an indication that other matters would come before the House later. It was unfortunate that at an earlier stage my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House desired this matter to go forward without debate. There was an exchange in which I joined—[Interruption.] Although we discussed the matter, there were few people present, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will know. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations should not be held at the far end of the Chamber. Will the hon. Gentleman please address the Chair?

Dr. Glyn: It is extremely difficult to concentrate when hon. Members interrupt from a reclining position.
I wish to mention the subject of shelving of volumes of Hansard. I believe that the new format will cause considerable problems in that regard. However, if all these documents are standardised, a great deal of the difficulty would disappear. In that case the Library could have common shelving for all documents.
It is a pity that the Select Committee was not given an opportunity to decide the size of all parliamentary documents, including documents issued by the EEC. Overall economies might be achieved in that way and standardisation of all documents would benefit the House as a whole.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The Services Committee appears to suffer from a mania of constantly seeking to get its proposals through on the nod as quickly as possible. In the absence of many hon. Members, the Services Committee tried to adopt the same tactic when we were discussing the car park proposals. It was only through the vigilance of one or two hon. Members that that proposal did not go through on the nod. In the end, we managed to squeeze a few minutes of debate on the subject. The House then went on to embark on the car park, which some of us still regard as a disaster.
We now have the First Report before us. It is laid down in the report that

this matter should come before the House. That is all right so far as it goes. But when the matter first came before the House on the subject of the printing of Hansard, there was no time to discuss the matter there and then. We then tabled a number of amendments to the original proposals put forward by the Services Committee.
A Second Report was issued by the Services Committee—a report which has not yet come before the House—relating to the car park in Broad Sanctuary. In the time that elapsed between the two meetings of the Select Committee on those subjects, another meeting was held and minutes were published, but no report has yet been presented to the House. Goodness knows, when that report will be presented—if at all. All the Committee has committed itself to do is to advise Mr. Speaker
of all Resolutions come to this day".
I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether the erection of a fountain in New Palace Yard to mark the Silver Jubilee was to be sanctioned by the House. My right hon. Friend is always truthful in these matters and said that that proposal had not been submitted formally to the House. Yet the minutes to which I have referred mention certain expenditure earmarked by the Department of the Environment for that very purpose. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is no way to carry on business to produce minutes and not to append to them a report. We have had no undertaking that such a report will ever come before the House. The fountain will go up in New Palace Yard, on top of the fountain that already does not work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the fountain is not playing today. It is strictly out of order for him to discuss that matter.

Mr. Lipton: It is true that the fountain is not playing today. All that has happened so far is that in the last two or three days five or six men have been standing around the hole looking into it. We should like a report from the Select Committee about what is going on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Select Committee may or may not decide


to make a report on that matter, but it is not under discussion this afternoon.

Mr. Lipton: But I am referring to the way in which the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) conducts its business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the First Report of the Select Committee, which the hon. Gentleman has in his hands.

Mr. Lipton: I am suggesting that the report which we are discussing involving the printing of Hansard almost went through on the nod. I am also suggesting that it was only the vigilance of one or two of my hon. Friends in tabling amendments that enabled this discussion to take place at all. That is typical of the way in which the Services Committee works. I wish to support the amendments. I sympathise with the Leader of the House who is always on a sticky wicket when dealing with anything to do with the Services Committee.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is very generous to me, but he should not address any criticism about timing of debates in this House to the Services Committee and even less criticism to the Chairman of the Committee whose report we are now discussing. If there is any criticism to be levelled, it should be directed at me as the bull's eye, without any of the shots hitting anybody else.

Mr. Lipton: In that case I shall fire one or two shots in the direction of my right hon. Friend. Having delivered a final shot to my right hon. Friend I conclude with a final shot to the Services Committee and the way in which it does its business.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen: This is not the most important or momentous matter before Parliament. However, it is a rather interesting exercise in examining the way in which we make investment decisions. I hope to elicit a little more information from my right hon. Friend the Lord President about when a saving becomes an economy.
It has been put to us that the new equipment is necessary because the existing equipment in the Parliamentary Press is obsolete, although I have not seen any

reports to indicate in any detail how obsolete it is. It is a well known ploy of bureaucrats to give others choices. That is done when they do not want to be asked the third question—namely, whether something is really necessary. They take the approach of saying "On the one hand you can do this and on the other hand you can do that", which coaxes others into taking a decision that may not be needed.

Mr. Foot: Some of these points were made by my hon. Friend in the earlier debate. I accept that they are important matters. However, in recent years there has been a great increase in the demand for parliamentary papers to accommodate the House. That is one of the factors that had to be considered. We then had to examine a breakdown of the supply of papers to the House. There have been criticisms on that account and the Committee took those matters into account. It took evidence and received information to ascertain how we could overcome some of the difficulties. The report is partly responsible for dealing with those very matters.

Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, it was a rather odd affair on 18th January when we debated these matters. I remember that at times my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department could hardly get a word in edgeways. Such was the state of affairs at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. Certain questions were not answered in the detail that might have been desirable.
Matters that were raised during the previous debate were the amount of extra expense that would be involved for libraries both in this place and elsewhere and the additional cost of binding. During the debate on 18th January my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he would consider the extent to which some of the work in the Parliamentary Press could be farmed out to HMSO works in Edinburgh. If there is to be the expected 25 per cent. increase in the amount of parliamentary papers and Government papers that are published during the next decade, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Lord President will say what examination has been made of the


extent to which additional work might be undertaken by HMSO works in Edinburgh.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now. Given the number of Members present in the Chamber I thought that there might be a greater barrage of suggestions or criticisms.
I make it clear at the outset that this is a matter for the House to decide. The Select Committee, on the evidence that it was given, has reported to the House.
Throughout all the time that I have been a member of the Services Committee it has always resisted change for the sake of change. Certainly that sort of change is sometimes urged upon us, or that is how we see it.
I believe that the House was not especially pleased when we came before it a little while ago with some proposals for changing the format of certain printed papers that are used by the House. However, the way in which Members have responded to handing in their amendments for earlier marshalling has worked quite well. There is no doubt that the experiment in respect of the setting out of Early-Day Motions has not been a success. It might have been more acceptable to the House if Members had found it convenient to reorganise the way in which they deal with the titles of motions. However, they have not seen fit to proceed in that way. As the Select Committee is a servant of the House I should not want the House to think for one moment that an inconvenient experiment will be proceeded with any longer than is necessary.
Following the Lord President's remarks I confirm that at our next meeting, which is on Tuesday, a proposition will be before the Committee recommending that the Early-Day Motion experiment be abandoned forthwith. It is regrettable that some Members should have been inconvenienced. The experiment was designed to save money. It would have saved a certain amount of money, but it is not convenient and, therefore, we shall abandon it.
The present proposition is before the House because the Stationery Office tells

us that mounting costs and strain at the presses on obsolete machinery could approach breakdown point. We were told that it was imperative that tenders should go out for new machinery. That is why the report was introduced to the House when it was and why it was hoped that the House would agree to the provisions within the report.
The Lord President has manfully shouldered any blame that there may be for the action of the Government's business managers and the handling of the report on a previous occasion. I assure the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) that the Services Committee does not attempt to get through its business on the nod. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that has never been the position. If there were more opportunity for open discussion on matters on which we should like the agreement of the House nobody would be more pleased than the Services Committee. All too often these domestic matters get crowded into some obscure part of the parliamentary day, if not into Written Answers on a Friday. We all agree that time should be available to discuss these important matters.
The House may think that it is cockeyed to ask for a decision on Hansard without deciding about the other papers, but we are informed that two completely new presses are proposed, one for Hansard, which the Stationery Office would like to get on with now, and another for the other papers in three years or four years.
I draw the attention of the House to the final and heavily printed paragraph in the report which states that the Stationery Office is charged
to inform Your Committee of the savings so achieved
that refers to the Hansard proposal—
in order that they may be able to demonstrate to the House that the new printing arrangements will also benefit public funds before they approve the next stage of HMSO's re-equipment programme.
There is no question of going on to another stage till we have had proved to us beyond any reasonable doubt that the Hansard printing has resulted in a real saving of expenditure and greater efficiency.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has said that there was to be one press for


the Hansard printing and another press, or presses, for other printing. As it is normal to run these expensive and sophisticated pieces of machinery on two shifts, and very often on three, what would the Hansard press be doing when it was not printing Hansard?

Mr. Cooke: If it were not having a rest, I should imagine that it would be usefully employed, but a good deal of Hansard printing goes on when the House is not actually talking and providing yards of copy to fill the pages. At any rate, I make it clear that there is no question of proceeding to stage 2—if it can be called that—till we have had experience of stage 1, and that is there for all to see in the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—I am glad that he intervened—asked, why not go to A5, which is half the size of A4? My hon. Friend is a genius, because he thought of exactly the same solution as I did when confronted with the problem. Thinking that Members would not like the larger page I said "Why not fold it in half and have A5—half of A4?"
We were told that A5, as I think the House will realise, would use more paper. It may sound silly when I say this, but there would be more margins per acreage of type with A4, the smaller page. If I may use a simple, childish example, a page the size of this Chamber would be almost all type, and hardly any of it margin.

Mr. Sainsbury: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one would depend upon the width of the margins and whether one printed in two columns or in one column?

Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend is very quick off the mark. I was coming to that point. We thought that it might be possible to have the type right across the page instead of in two columns, as at present, but came to the conclusion that that would not be particularly readable. This may be a matter of opinion.
Another suggestion was to employ a special type of press as opposed to A4, because A4 is a standard size for which there are standard machines and standard practices. If one went for a special press, one might tend to import special problems. I need take the House no

further along that line. There are standard practices for standard machines and we were advised that there was great advantage in that.

Mr. George Cunningham: What is that?

Mr. Cooke: This operation—

Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman speaks from a standing position, yes.

Mr. Cunningham: I am asking what it means. This operation will be for a unique job—the printing of parliamentary papers—and the people who perform that work are on the whole employed on a long-term basis on that work. If there is a point there, surely it should have been put into the report.

Mr. Cooke: I am coming to that. I will not repeat what I have just said. I will simply emphasise that standard machines have their standard printing practices, manning scales, and so on. There is some advantage in that, rather than trying to work out a system for a one-off job. I do not think that there is any point in labouring that. The hon. Gentleman may have a different point of view about it.
It is certainly true that the present presses, which are obsolete, and, indeed, some of the practices which have grown up around them, make for immense stresses and strains, sometimes mechanical breakdowns, sometimes stoppages of other kinds. I will not elaborate on those now. They are well known.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made the point that the Select Committee Report was not perhaps as forthcoming as he would wish, as did the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Indeed, the reason the hon. Member was not in his place at the beginning of the debate and why I arrived only just as the Lord President rose at the Dispatch Box was that the hon. Gentleman and I were closeted upstairs in a room which was mentioned earlier in the debate trying to explore each other's minds for the benefit of the House on this tricky and difficult matter. I hope that the Written Answer of 9th March


gives a good deal more information than we had before.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. The House is grateful for the further information that it has received. As we are gradually getting more and more information with each debate that is held and each Question that is answered, does he not think that if the Services Committee were enabled to have another look at the question it might provide a detailed report which would save parliamentary time discussing the types of matter which really should not be discussed across the Floor of the House?

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will realise that but for an accident of the parliamentary timetable we should never be having this debate at this particular moment. If the House decides to approve the amendment today we shall indeed be charged with the responsibility of taking a further look at the matter. Perhaps we can come to that point in its proper place.
Immediately after the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South I have a note of the intervention of the hon. Member for Brixton—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is Lambeth, Central. It used to be Brixton when he and I were young. I will not follow him in great detail into his complaints, save to say that were all the advice of the Services Committee the subject of a report to the House and debate in the House the House might get very bored with the proceedings.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that we have always done our best to assist him, and that when on one occasion we acted, perhaps somewhat over-spontaneously, to a suggestion of his that we move a piece of equipment in this building for his advantage—we did so because we thought that the request was eminently reasonable and because he looked eminently reasonable when he made the request—we ran into one hell of a row with about 20 other Members. So we land ourselves in trouble by trying to assist a particular Member or group of Members.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will devote to our minutes the careful scrutiny

he usually devotes to these matters. Although he may not approve of some expenditure, which flowed from a minute that he quoted, he will find before long that very substantial savings are to be made in the domestic expenditure of the House, though this may have the effect of considerably inconveniencing some Members, perhaps even the hon. Gentleman himself. However, we are always conscious of the need to be as economic as possible, when we have the advice of 634 Members of the House and we, in turn, have to advise Mr. Speaker. We are an advisory Committee.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one short query? Why is it that the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on 25th January and 1st February have been published but no report has been submitted to the House for its sanction?

Mr. Cooke: I thought that I had answered that during the course of my remarks which preceded the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Not everything that we do is subject to a formal report to the House. Nor, indeed, could it be. However, the minutes are designed to be as informative as possible within the bounds of parliamentary procedure. The point will be taken. If we have not been as informative as we should be within the rules, which are not designed by our Select Committee, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will try to be more forthcoming in future.
I must try to deal briefly now with some of the charges that hon. Members have made to the effect that those who serve us in the House and outside it are most unhappy about the proposed change in relation particularly to the size of the printed page. The Librarian confirms that he has no objection to the proposed change.
I might reflect en passant that practically every shelf in the House of Commons Library is adjustable. Some hon. Members may have fixed shelves for bound volumes of Hansard but I can assure the House that there are enough bound volumes of the present size still to come—because we are behind in our production—to fill up most of the vacant spaces on their shelves. Hon. Members should not feel too put out about that.


They can anticipate the change in size by having their next bookcases made to fit it.
The Table Office has confirmed that it has no objections. The Deliverer of the Vote has also said that he accepts it but adds that some of the shelves may have to be adjusted. However, I have examined the Vote Office and the shelves will take A4 documents. The Editor of Hansard also confirms his view.
Perhaps some individual members of staff who have not studied the report in detail have expressed views to hon. Members, but we have confirmation in writing from heads of departments.
The House will now want to come to a decision on the matter.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what will happen to the strikebreaking machinery that we installed downstairs at great expense for producing Orders of the Day when we do not receive them? Does the proposal allow the use of that machinery?

Mr. Cooke: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's description of the machines. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that the copying machines print on A4 paper and that that will be convenient should breakdowns occur in the future. There will be an economy, because the present size leaves waste paper round the edges.
I think that I have answered all the points that have not already been dealt with by the Lord President. Hon. Members must realise that the present bound volumes of Hansard are incredibly clumsy. They are too thick to hold if one has to handle more than two or three at a time. They are unmanageable. If we use the new size the volumes would not be so thick and would be more attractive and manageable. The issue is one upon which the House must make its judgment.
I knew at the outset of the debate, when an immodest number of compliments were directed at me, that they would soon be replaced by a few mud pies from hon. Members, including my hon. Friends. The Select Committee does its best to be as forthcoming as procedures allow. Procedures can be something of a straitjacket on occasions, but we try to bend them as much as possible.
We have initiated periodic morning sittings in the Committee Room, to which any hon. Member can come and make suggestions. The next of these will be on Thursday week. It will appear on the all-party Whip. I hope that the 633 other hon. Members of the House will bear that in mind, and either send suggestions in writing or appear before the Committee personally.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I wish to take part in the debate particularly to apologise to the Lord President because, on 18th January, when we last discussed the matter, I complained in strong terms that he was not present to guide us. He had a good reason for not being present. Now that he is less busy he is able to be with us. I am sorry that I have only just arrived in the Chamber but there are other things happening upstairs and I was in a Committee. I was staggered to see on the annunciator that we were nearly at the end of the day. I wonder what is happening to Parliament these days.
The Lord President is a man not only of words spoken but of words written. He is a man of books. I hope that I am not betraying a confidence but he once said to me in a taxi that he was a slow reader of books of about the size of the present Hansard. I do not know whether he will be a quicker reader when it is possible for him to pick up a book the size of the London telephone directory, which is now proposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) said that the proposed form will not be so thick when bound. I am glad to hear that because a book of the size proposed would be, if it were as thick, even harder to hold.
In our previous debate I told the House of my reading habits of Hansard and I said that I read it in bed. It is difficult to read a book of the proposed new size in bed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It helps one get to sleep.

Mr. Crouch: I read Hansard to get to sleep and sometimes I get to sleep more quickly than at other times.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely): It depends on the size of the bed.

Mr. Crouch: That is a typical Liberal remark. I do not wish to make jokes about this matter.
A man such as the Lord President, who is a man of books as well as of words, must surely be able to advise the House whether the new large size is the best size to read or whether the present size is best. After all, we are discussing Parliament's most important reading matter. The Lord President has written books that we queue up to buy. He has writen about former leaders of his party and other political issues. Those books were not published in the proposed new size. Presumably that is because publishers are convinced that a smaller size is more practical. I am therefore surprised that we should venture towards the size of the London telephone directory instead of agreeing the size that every publisher in the country regards as suitable for both fiction and non-fiction. As Hansard covers both those forms of literature, we should stick to the most convenient size to read.
One of the most successful publications in the world is Reader's Digest, which is slightly smaller than Hansard. I do not read that publication. It could be said that I neither read nor digest it. That is not a new joke but a regurgitated joke. It is a convenient size whereas the proposed new size will prove to be inconvenient.
I shall not go into the matter of the size of library shelves but it is a problem that I hope the Government will consider.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about letter boxes?

Mr. Crouch: I have argued about letter boxes before and I withdraw my complaint. I complained about letter boxes because at the time we were having many late night sittings. I argued that hon. Members go home at night tired and in the morning when the postman delivers their breakfast-time Hansard, they are forced out of bed before they want to rise. I said that that is tiring for hon. Members. I now believe that that argument is wrong because it is possible for Hansard to be left on the doorstep to be collected whenever convenient. That is not the most important point.
The most important point must be concentrated on the format of the book itself. Is it a suitable size? I have given further thought to this matter, and I still maintain that it is not a suitable size. We are working towards something for the convenience not of the House, not of Members, and not of readers of Hansard and students of parliamentry proceedings outside the House, but of the producers, the printers. That is not the proper priority that we should be giving to this matter. It should be whether the proceedings of Parliament may be read conveniently, quickly and easily.
It is one of the wonders of Parliament that we receive our proceedings, recorded so accurately, at 10 o'clock in the morning of the day after our proceedings. That is something on which I always comment to my constituents, who never cease to be amazed about lots of things that go on here, and that above all. Particularly do I comment on this to foreign visitors whom I bring here. I am very proud of the fact.
Incidentally, thanks to the Lord President, we have recently seen a great improvement in the printing of parliamentary papers for some Select Committees—particularly the Public Accounts Committee—which are now arriving on my desk within a week of the proceedings taking place. There has been a great improvement in recent months. All these things are excellent. However, it is a mistake for us to move towards changing to a format that will not suit Members of Parliament and other students of parliamentary business.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Foot: If the House will permit me, I should like to reply very briefly to the debate.
I should like to comment first on the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I assure him that since 18th January there has hardly been any subject that has dominated my mind more than his bedtime reading. I have applied my mind to this matter from that point of view, so I hope that I shall be able to relieve his anxieties in these matters.
I genuinely believe—I know that these are matters of taste—that the format of the new Hansard which would be available under these proposals would be an


improvement on that which we have today. I am not criticising the Hansard that we have today. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the miracle of printing production, which has supplied hon. Members with Hansard in a better way, I believe, than almost any other Parliament in the world is served.
A great deal of that credit goes to the printers. I have always been very interested in the subject because I have lived my life almost with printer's ink in my veins. I am very interested in the whole matter. However, I honestly believe that the new product is better than the old, from the point of view of not only those who will produce it but those who will consume it. I even believe that it will be easier to handle in bed.
In that regard, in handling the present Hansard one often finds that the last word in a lot of columns is difficult to read, which is calculated to play hell with the best literary styles. There are some difficulties in reading the present Hansard. The new product will in some respects be easier to read.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) commented on the printing and the type. Some decisions have still to be made about the printing and the size of type. However, I believe that the House will find that the new product will be better from the point of view of reading than the old, although obviously there are questions of taste.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked whether we could not have a wider column and whether that would be better. Here again, anyone who has studied the matter and has experience in these matters—the newspapers have obviously applied their minds to this subject—will know that a wider column is much more difficult to read. In my opinion, the best made up newspapers are those that have studied the matter and have somewhat narrower columns so that the eye can rest on them more easily. A column as wide as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be found to be very hard on people's eyes. I believe that our proposal, so far from being one that is found inconvenient, as well as being cheaper will be more convenient as a whole.

Dr. Glyn: We were discussing economies, and if one takes out the middle margin that achieves an economy. One column of the proposed new Hansard is equal in width to nearly two columns of the existing Hansard.

Mr. Foot: The proposal is made partly on grounds of economy, but I am replying partly to the hon. Member for Canterbury. If the economies had involved a diminution of the convenience of the House, we should not do this. But I do not believe that they do. In many respects, they involve an improvement for the House.
Certainly the proposal involves—this is the origin of the whole matter in a sense—an improvement in the process of ensuring that in the future we shall have what we have been so proud of in the past—a proper supply of parliamentary papers. What has happened over recent years is that that supply has been interfered with on a number of occasions, partly because the amount of papers that have to be printed has become so much greater and, therefore, the burden on the machines and printers has become much greater. Therefore, we have had to look for ways of using new technology to supply the House with what it wants and to maintain, and possibly to advance, the standards that we have had in the past. That is where the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) has helped us so much in examining the possibilities and coming to the House with this proposal.

Mr. Spearing: The whole House is not against advance technically in this respect. What we are hesitant about is the size of the new Hansard. My right hon. Friend has told the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) that a wider column is more difficult to read and that is why we should not have that. But is it not a fact that the new arrangements that my right hon. Friend says would be an improvement have columns that are wider than the present column, which has served this House very well without complaint since 1806? Why does my right hon. Friend want to change it?

Mr. Foot: That is a different question. It is a slightly wider column, but what the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead was proposing was a column that went right across the page. I was


contesting that. I do not believe that that would be convenient. Indeed, it would be much more tiring and difficult in the end. However, the slightly wider colmun involved in this proposal does not involve any criticism of the same kind. As has been indicated in the previous discussions, the actual typography will be improved under the proposal.
My hon. Friend has criticised the timing of the previous debate. The criticism does not rest with the Services Committee. There may be legitimate criticisms to be made of that Committee on other grounds, but the idea that it has been seeking to press its proposals at some time that is not convenient to the House is wrong. The decisions as to when these matters are put down are made in the main by myself and those in charge of the Government's business. The Opposition can criticise these matters if they wish, and others may raise them. However, on many occasions we have to secure the debating of these matters at times that are late in the day. That is due to the general business of the House. The fact that we have had this debate at a somewhat different time today may be of assistance in dealing with some future business of the Services Committee.
We shall take account of the representations made by the House, but I hope that the House will now be willing to proceed to accept the report, because it would not be sensible for us to drag on these discussions, as my hon. Friends have suggested in the amendment.
Some of the points raised in the amendment are quite legitimately raised. I do not say that in any patronising sense. Indeed, one of the things that are of absolutely essential importance to the proper functioning of the House is that all Committees are answerable to the House and that all of them can secure support for what they propose only if they can get it through this Chamber itself. No one is more insistent on that doctrine than I.
Therefore, I do not complain about my hon. Friends raising the matter or putting

down an amendment and asking that we should debate the question. However, some of the issues raised by my hon. Friends—indeed, most of the matters that they have raised—have been answered by the hon. Member for Bristol, West or in what I said earlier. All the Officers of the House who had observations to make on the matter were properly consulted and gave their views. Some of them were neutral about the question. Others might favour it. But it is for the House of Commons to decide what it should do. It is not a matter for any Government vote or on which objectionable people such as Patronage Secretaries are allowed to poke in their noses, or anything of that sort. It is entirely a matter for the House.

I believe that this is a reasonable proposal and that, thanks largely to the hon. Member for Bristol, West, the question has been studied with great care. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will be ready not to press their amendment, which has enabled us to debate some of these matters, and that we can proceed to adopt this report, which will mean that in the years to come—the proposal does not come into operation immediately—we shall supply a better service for the House. We shall sustain the good parts of the service that we have. We have a chance of improving the service but if we do not do what is proposed now there will be a real danger of deterioration in the service and the House would be responsible for that. I hope that on these grounds the House will be prepared to accept the Select Committee's Report.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to be some mystery as to where the Tellers have disappeared. Therefore, I call the Division off and I shall put the Question again in a moment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 83.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Banks, Robert
Berry, Hon Anthony


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Biggs-Davison, John


Arnold, Tom
Beith, A. J.
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)




Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Neubert, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Newens, Stanley


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grist, Ian
Ogden, Eric


Brooke, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brotherton, Michael
Hall, Sir John
Park, George


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parry, Robert


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pavitt, Laurie


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Penhaligon, David


Canavan, Dennis
Havers, Sir Michael
Reid, George


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, R.


Carmichael, Neil
Holland, Philip
Richardson, Miss Jo


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hooley, Frank
Rifkind, Malcolm


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Emlyn
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Clegg, Walter
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sandelson, Neville


Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sedgemore, Brian


Cowans, Harry
James, David
Selby, Harry


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Silverman, Julius


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lamont, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Nigel
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, Burnaby
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tapsell, Peter


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


English, Michael
Luce, Richard
Thompson, George


Eyre, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McCusker, H.
Viggers, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNamara, Kevin
Ward, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Warren, Kenneth


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellalieu, J. P. W.
Watt, Hamish


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Weetch, Ken


Forrester, John
Mather, Carol
Whitlock, William


Freud, Clement
Mawby, Ray
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Mikardo, Ian
Wool, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mills, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Gilbert, Dr John
Moate, Roger



Glyn, Dr Alan
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gourlay, Harry
Molyneaux, James
Mr. Marcus Lipton and


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mudd, David





NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, John (Islington C)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Archer, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Nelson, Anthony


Armstrong, Ernest
Harper, Joseph
Newton, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hawkins, Paul
Parker, John


Bishop, E. S.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Perry, Ernest


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
 Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Concannon, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sillars, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Doig, Peter
MacKenzie, Gregor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


George, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)







Weatherill, Bernard
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Ioan Evans and


Williams, At Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House declines to agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services)

in their First Report since no Report concerning the proposed changes of printing arrangements for Parliament has been made available to this House; and calls upon the Services Committee to provide more comprehensive information, including evidence taken from the Officers of the House before presenting a further Report.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (SAFETY AT WORK)

6.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/960/76 and the Government's memorandum dated 10th March on Safety Information at the Workplace.
We are anxious to give the House an opportunity to express a view on this issue well in advance of any decision being taken within the Community. The purpose of the draft directive is to introduce a uniform system of safety signs in work places to help to protect workers and the public.
This country and other member States of the EEC have a multiplicity of different signs to prohibit various actions, to warn of dangers, to explain what is mandatory and to give general information. Many different signs can lead to misunderstandings, and considerable training is needed so that signs are understood. This is particularly relevant on the European mainland with the number of migrant workers there and is by no means irrelevant to us in that respect.
It is thought necessary to harmonise signs, and the proposals set out a way of doing this by laying down the basic principles for shapes and colours—if employers wish to display a sign, it must comply with the scheme—by devising symbols to depict commonly found situations—the symbols are fitted into the coloured shapes of the scheme and reproduced as an annex to the directive—and by requiring signs displayed to control internal works transport to be the same as those used for controlling road traffic.
The Select Committee drew attention to the fact that there is no requirement in the draft directive that signs must be provided in certain circumstances and no clear indication of where they should be placed. We feel that this is an advantage because it would be difficult for the Commission to foresee circumstances applicable in all member States for the posting of safety signs, and it gives the necessary flexibility. For example, in this country we can make and, indeed, have made regulations in connection with the provision

of suitable notices warning people that they are in the vicinity of a radiation area where we feel that such signs are essential. I have a great deal of faith in the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Health and Safety Commission, and we can expect a few years' flexibility here.
On the other points made by the Select Committee, I agree about the importance of a transition period to allow workers to familiarise themselves with the new signs and about the need for instruction in safety measures, though this point is made fairly strongly in the annex to the draft directive.
We also agree on the need for a longer implementation period. We cannot estimate the exact cost. However, we agree with the Select Committee that a longer implementation period will be worth while. It would not only spread the cost of installing new signs but subsume some of the replacement costs arising from the natural wastage of signs. There is no requirement in the draft directive that signs must be provided in any particular circumstances, so implementation can be selective.
I turn now to our general view. The proposals in the draft directive are broadly in line with the Government's wish to ensure that the workplace is safe and without risk to health. Signs can play a valuable part in this respect, and measures to make signs more readily understood are helpful. I stress that the posting of signs should not be seen as a substitute for other effective protective measures, such as the provision of adequate information, instruction, training and supervision.
A British Standards Institution technical committee, after consulting the various interests concerned, has agreed the text of a British standard on safety signs and colours, and it has recently been published. That is broadly consistent with the Commission's proposals. Both the Health and Safety Commission and the BSI are firmly committed to improvements in standards, particularly those influencing the health and safety of people at the workplace. With that in mind the HSC feels that harmonisation in this way is desirable, bearing in mind that safety signs are basically the means of giving immediate communication of particular hazards.
As to the form of the instrument, while accepting that the principle of harmonisation of safety signs is good, it is necessary to decide whether we are in agreement with the means proposed for doing it. The Health and Safety Commission, which includes members representing employers and trade unions, in consultation with the CBI and the TUC has given the proposals a lot of consideration and come to the conclusion that there are considerable difficulties in achieving harmonisation by directive. Chief among the difficulties is that a number of different systems have developed in this country. Harmonisation will take time and add to costs. The HSC and the Government think that a more flexible form of instrument would allow different situations to be dealt with on their merits within the general framework of the proposals. That is the approach that we are pursuing.
I turn now to some of the specific objections to the proposals. First, Appendix II, page 4, of the directive shows signs for emergency exits. These are in conflict with signs proposed by a technical committee of the International Organisation for Standardisation as well as BSI proposals on fire signs. They are not contained in the most recent ISO document on safety signs. It was thought that further consideration should be given by an international committee specifically dealing with fire signs. One sign shows what is generally called the "running man". Although the sign is meant to be symbolic, we think that some workers might take it too literally. It could cause confusion and even lead to panic in certain situations. Therefore, we are unhappy about that suggestion.
There has been criticism that the proposals are not coincidental with labels used on dangerous substances and road signs. There is some truth in that. But it is not generally thought that these differences are of great importance as each system has been designed to apply to different circumstances. The safety signs scheme has tried to follow the shape, colour, and so on of road 'signs, since it was felt that the two schemes most nearly related. It has not always been possible to achieve similarity with labelling proposals.
The National Coal Board was opposed to the application of the directive to

coal mining. It was and is mainly concerned that consistent and carefully worked-out systems of safety signs agreed between management and unions would be disrupted for no real purpose at considerable cost.
There is obvious difficulty in supporting the exemption of any single major industry, because similar arguments can be applied to other industries in which there are particular hazards. That kind of consideration strengthens the argument for harmonisation by a non-binding instrument or by more flexible means. We are conscious of that situation. But other considerations are involved. We shall need to take account of Community views as a whole. That is particularly important as we hold the Presidency. We are in a minority on this particular issue, so we must take note of that, too.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The memorandum states that the subject of mines and steelworks has been sent to the Mines Safety and Health Commission and the Committee for Safety in the Steel Industry and that
The views of the two bodies are awaited.
Is my hon. Friend saying that this matter will not be discussed at the Council of Ministers until those views have been received? If the directive is brought into force, will the Government still have a reserve, or do they intend to make the National Coal Board change its signs yet again?

Mr. Grant: I was coming to that. There is no question of the Council of Ministers considering this matter before we have that opinion. I give my hon. Friend that unequivocal assurance. I shall come back to that subject.
I turn to the progress of the draft directive. The instrument was originally communicated by the EEC to the Council in April 1976. It has been discussed by officials in the Community, where we have expressed general sympathy with the aims, but I shall go over our reservations again. We have sought agreement, first, on a more flexible instrument of a non-binding character—perhaps a recommendation—secondly, on a longer implementation time than the 18 months envisaged by the Commission; and, thirdly, on the deletion of the emergency exit signs—the "running man". We have had some support for our views on


the second and third items—the implementation time and the "running man"—but we are alone in opposing the directive.
The draft directive should have been considered at the last meeting of the Social Affairs Council, to which I went in December, but it was withdrawn from the agenda. The Commission agreed to a request from the Consultative Committee to the Coal and Steel Community that opinion should first be obtained from the Mines Safety and Health Commission. The Consultative Committee was responding to pressure from the National Coal Board, and obviously we were only to ready to support the withdrawal of that item from the agenda in that context.
When the NCB became aware of our isolation on the directive, it sought support through the Consultative Committee. The Mines Safety and Health Commission has not yet given its opinion, but the indications—I cannot say more than this—are that it may recommend the exclusion of the mining industry. If it does, that problem will be resolved.
As to future action, discussion of the draft instrument in the Social Questions Working Group is likely to be resumed this month, possibly with a view to securing a decision from the Council in June. Therefore, any further briefing of our representatives in Brussels should take careful note of any comments which the House may make tonight.
I should like to clear up one element of misunderstanding. Some of my hon. Friends may have thought that the Government were recommending acceptance of the directive. We certainly are not at this stage. I think that I have clearly outlined our doubts and reservations. On that basis, the House may accept that our current negotiating position is realistic.

Mr. Neil Marten: Will the Minister say how far he is going to take the reservations and resist opposition to the reservations which he has just listed?

Mr. Grant: I do not want to go beyond what I have said. It would be wrong for me to come to the House in a "take note" debate with the object of listening to the views of hon. Members, and yet, in advance of those views, set

out our negotiating position beyond that which I have already outlined. In fact the Government do not have a fixed position on this matter. We shall take note of what hon. Members say and we shall listen to the views of others involved, such as the Health and Safety Commission, the National Coal Board, the trade unions and others.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I should inform the House that the amendment is not selected.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I am not anti-safety signs at all, but I dislike nannying by the EEC when these things could be done in another way or better done. I cannot help feeling that this draft instrument is designed much more for the benefit of our Continental partners, which have a great number of migrant workers coming in from Turkey and other places, and that it is not really very applicable to this country.
Surely if we are to do this and do it properly, we ought to do it on a much wider basis than merely the EEC. This is the sort of thing that worries me about such Community legislation. All of this ought to be practised throughout the whole of Western Europe or throughout the whole of the OECD. We should be doing this through the International Organisation of Standards, which crosses a much wider grouping of countries than merely the EEC.
One of the reasons for this move is given in the document itself as being that if we do not have these signs, that will constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the Common Market. That is a quite absurd reason for this directive. To do without it would certainly not be an obstacle to trade or the functioning of trade in the Common Market.
Is there any evidence that immigrants in this country are being in any way injured in accidents because they do not understand our signs? I am sure that that is one of the matters that the Department must have gone into before agreeing to this form of harmonisation.
Is such harmonisation really necessary in this country? Our immigrant workers are largely from the Asian countries, and I have with me a list of immigrants


accepted for settlement here from the Common Market between January and September 1975, the latest figures available. The numbers are very small, indeed—Belgium 48, Denmark 63, France 273, Germany 293, Italy 388, Luxembourg one and the Netherlands 180. The number of Commonwealth citizens admitted in the same period was about 38,000. Are we therefore not being asked to deal with this problem for a very small minority when in fact we should be dealing with it for a much wider group?
I do not very much like Article 6, which states how the proposition is to be dealt with in the relevant committee. It says:
The Committee shall give its Opinion on that draft within a time limit set by the Chairman having regard to the urgency of the matter. Opinions shall be delivered by a majority of votes, the votes of the Member States being weighted as provided in Article 148(2) of the Treaty.
The article goes on:
Where the measures envisaged are in accordance with the Opinion of the Committee, the Commission shall adopt them.
There is no reference at that point to the Council of Ministers, but it goes on to say that in the Council of Ministers the matter will be settled by qualified majority. We should watch this. If something offensive arises in this directive we might not be able to put a block on it as we might wish.
I agree that we want a longer implementation period. Surely there should also have been scope in some way in the document—which does not really go into this aspect—for the retraining of people to understand these new signs in the factories.
But my main anxiety concerns the cost of all this to British industry. I did not hear the Minister give an estimate of what it would be, but I think that it would be fairly substantial when allied to the retraining which would have to be done, and the cost would have to be borne by the firms. I wonder, therefore, whether all this is necessary for Britain. It may be necessary in Germany, with all its migrant workers, but is it really necessary for us? Have we not got along without this sort of thing perfectly well?
I am totally in favour of many safety signs, and the National Coal Board, for example, already has better safety signs than the EEC is now proposing. This country has done a very good job with its safety signs, and I do not see why the EEC should interfere with something that we are already doing so well.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Alec Woodall: I am perturbed that we should only now be discussing a directive dated 7th April 1976 and to read in Article 7 that member countries are obliged to implement it within a period of 18 months.
The signs applying to the coal industry have been mentioned. The National Coal Board has just expended £500,000 on introducing new signs in our collieries. The whole subject has been thrashed out in the normal process of consultation with the trade unions, but I understand that this obligatory directive has not been the subject of consultation by any of the Ministers in Europe, not even with the European Coal and Steel Community, and that is appalling. The coal industry by its nature is the most accident-prone—

Mr. John Grant: And the most safety-conscious.

Mr. Woodall: —and the most safety-conscious, as my hon. Friend says. Yet here we have a directive which, without consultation, is being thrust upon member States to be implemented within 18 months. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it known to our representatives in Europe that we deplore this kind of thing. Not all of us were in favour of going into the Common Market, and directives of this kind make us rather more bitter about it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter most vigorously in Europe and that he will make a special case that the National Coal Board, being very safety-conscious and with a large labour force, has just spent £500,000 on introducing new signs. That fact should be taken into account and stressed as strongly as possible to Ministers in Europe. It is appalling that we should have a directive of this nature thrust upon us without any consultation. My hon. Friend should take note of the comments made by the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers on this matter.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). Having read the explanatory memorandum, and having heard the remarks about the safety provisions of the National Coal Board, I find it extraordinary that proposals should be brought forward that would cause further major changes and expenditure without adequate consultation. The Minister made sympathetic noises about the position of the NCB, but I hope that he will do rather more than that.
I hope that the Government will take a firm line on matters of this kind. My principal concern about this proposal is that it seems totally unnecessary in industry. It does not seem particularly helpful for health and safety at work generally, and one wonders why Parliament's time is being taken up with proposals of this kind. One does not feel that propositions of this kind will make any worthwhile contribution to health and safety at work.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that we are all concerned to ensure that there are the highest standards of safety in work places. If we felt that this proposal was filling a gap, I suspect that the whole House would welcome it enthusiastically, but I do not believe that a case has been made out that such a gap exists. It has not been long since the Health and Safety at Work Act was implemented.
These are matters which concern the House greatly. We feel that British industry is as concerned as anyone to ensure that we have adequate signs at places of work. However, to superimpose this EEC proposal on our national legislation seems not only superfluous and time-wasting for the House, but it could be disruptive and confusing for British industry. It could also be very expensive.
The Minister did not tell us the likely cost of implementing the proposal over a period of years. Will he give an estimate of the likely cost to British industry? Presumably the cost would be built up over a number of years, and presumably some estimate of the cost will have been made. It would be helpful if the hon.

Gentleman could tell us what the estimate is. The cost is not an isolated one. It has to be added to the many other costs falling on industry in implementing legislation of this kind.
I shall touch briefly on the proposals themselves. Perhaps I am alone in this, but I am very skeptical about the desire for harmonisation of signs so that they are theoretically comprehensible to people of all languages. When I look at these signs they become totally incomprehensible to me. I should have thought that the word "Exit" was as meaningful and as helpful to someone wanting to leave a building as a sign without any words which displayed a running man heading for an open door. It might mean "emergency exit" to some people, but someone else could interpret it as a man answering the call of nature and running fast to the toilet. That is what the running man looks like to me.
Another suggested sign for "emergency exit" is a large coffin-like picture with an arrow pointing straight into the ground. Again, the words "emergency exit" are relatively comprehensible to the majority of workers in British factories, and I should have thought that it was more helpful to them than just to have a sign of this kind without any words.
There are many other signs which may have meaning to others but which I would not find helpful. One sign shows a picture of a boot, which means that safety boots must be worn. I should have thought that the words "Safety boots must be worn" would be meaningful to most people. If we are to use standardised signs, it should be a requirement that the wording should be put alongside the sign to explain what it means. Unless one has grown accustomed to these signs over a period of years, they are not instantly meaningful in an emergency.
I suspect that there is a strong case for resisting many of the proposals purely on the grounds of common sense. I do not feel that they are particularly helpful. These points have been taken on board by the Government, who have made many constructive objections to the proposals and have outlined them very clearly in the explanatory memorandum.
What concerns me is that, although the Government have said that they dislike


these proposals, they are taking a rather mild attitude to them. The Government say that they have not yet been able to persuade their fellow members of the Community, implying that eventually they will go along with the proposals, with one or two minor exceptions.
Why do the Government feel that they have to agree to these proposals? Is it because we hold the Presidency? That is one of the weakest arguments one could use.

Mr. John Grant: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I said that the Presidency was one of the factors that we have to take into account, along with many other factors which support the hon. Gentleman's case.

Mr. Moate: I am sorry if I misquoted the hon. Gentleman. The Minister has assisted me in clarifying my points by saying that it is a factor that we have to take into account.
I suggest that the fact that Britain is temporarily occupying the President's chair has no relevance at all to the policies that the Government should adopt.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If the fact that we hold the Presidency is an argument for accepting anything that the Commission puts forward, had we not better resign the Presidency straight away?

Mr. Moate: It could be argued that that would strengthen our negotiating position considerably. I suggest that the argument about the Presidency has gone too far. In two or three months' time we shall presumably vacate the Chair. It would hardly be a persuasive argument, when asked why we accepted a particular piece of legislation to say that we did so because we happened to be holding the Presidency at the time. The Presidency should not affect in the slightest what legislation we accept.

Mr. Spearing: When the President happens to be a member of the United Kingdom Government, another member of the Government articulates our case. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is nodding his head. The point about being in the Chair is not a factor to be taken into account if we have a junior member of the Government in the Council to make our case.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point. The remark about the Presidency was made en passant by the Minister. I do not think that it is an argument which should seriously be advanced, since in a month or two we shall leave the chair. Being in the chair is a routine occupation. The office circulates among the members of the Community, and I cannot understand why such a fuss is made about it, from the Prime Minister downwards.
I refer again to the explanatory memorandum and the question of signs. The memorandum quite properly points out that the proposed safety signs are of a different colour from our road signs. Logically, if we accept standardised signs, the safety signs should be similar to the road signs. This is yet another nonsense which should be resisted completely.
The explanatory memorandum states:
Firstly the colour combination used on the proposed safety warning signs differs from that already used for road signs. The industrial sign colours now proposed by the Commission are based on the safety colour code which is a fundamental concept of the Commission's draft.
The memorandum continues:
Secondly, all the proposed industrial prohibitory signs include a red cancellation bar
and states that this is contrary to the road sign provisions.
The only logical thing to do would be to revise all our road signs to conform with the safety signs, but the cost of doing so would be massive and out of the question.
I hope that the Government will take heart and strength from what is said in the Chamber today in support of their objections to these proposals. Perhaps the Government will then go on with renewed vigour to ensure that no directive is introduced along the lines at present proposed.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I declare my interest in the sense that I am an NUM-sponsored Member. It is fair to say that we have received representations from the union head office about this matter.
I understood the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) to say that we are wasting the time of the House in debating these matters. I suspect that is not quite


what he meant. I am delighted that we are debating this subject. It gives us a chance to get across somehow to the 40 or 50 per cent. of the population who are opposed to the whole concept of the Common Market the fact that there is someone in this building who is prepared to fight to the last breath—not about getting better directives or about restructuring or about improving the situation, but about getting out of the Common Market.
That is what we are about and therefore when these matters are brought to light we must expose them and subject them to the constant drip of propaganda. In that way we can alert the people concerned—in this case primarily the coal miners and those in the coal mining communities. Therefore we must welcome the opportunity to get across the message that the bureaucrats in the Common Market, accountable almost to no one, are taking decisions, often without consultation, which affect the coal and steel industries on both the management and trade union sides.
Mr. Lawrence Daly has mentioned in a letter to us that there has been no consultation on this matter. The NUM is deeply upset about the way in which it is being treated. It goes to the Common Market—I do not agree that it should be there, but it goes—notwithstanding that it is not consulted on matters of this kind. It is therefore fanciful to assume that even if one has representatives on the spot in the Common Market they will get to know what is happening.
Decisions are being taken in areas where the union representatives and any other representatives—even directly elected representatives if ever we were stupid enough to take that step—never get the chance of joining in the decision-making. Therefore, I make the strongest possible protest on behalf of the mining group in this House. I do not always agree with everything that the NUM says on matters affecting wages and other subjects. However, in this case the union is making a protest not from my point of view, which is of complete hostility to the Common Market and its whole concept, but from the more tolerant point of view of those who accepted the decision and in some cases in the union were fervent supporters of joining the EEC.
I notice that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is jeering. He was a fervent supporter of the Common Market. Like many other Conservatives, however, he is now frustrated at the way in which it is developing, and, like them, he is not sure what to do about it. They would like to adopt the position adopted by the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Faversham, who can claim to Tory audiences what the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West would like to be able to claim. There is a lot of dissension inside the Tory Party, just as there is within the ranks of the Labour movement.
When we in this House speak against the Common Market, we are speaking not to the one or two people in the House, but to the nation outside, which is utterly divided on this matter. That is why it is important to raise our voices at every possible opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the debate has something to do with coal and steel, about which the hon. Gentleman should be addressing us.

Mr. Skinner: In dealing with any subject that emanates from over the water we must speak against the background of how those decisions are made there and of how we feel about the whole concept of the Common Market. It is futile for us to try to speak about this issue in the narrow terms posed by this directive. That cannot be done. There is a nation outside which is frustrated about the Common Market and we, as its representatives in the House, when faced with a challenge, however small and insignificant, must relate it to the fundamental question of Britain's entry into the EEC and, more important still, the desire of some Britons to get out. That desire is expressed by my voice and the voices of a few other hon. Members.
Those in the miners' union who advocated membership of the EEC are now beginning to see that, like many other groups, they are being treated without courtesy or decency by the Community's administrators and bureaucrats. That is conveyed clearly by the directive. Bureaucrats have never even bothered to ask about these matters. If they had telephoned Hobart House or 222 Euston Road they would have learned from Lawrence Daly or Joe Gormley that half


a million pounds was already being spent on new signs in the pits in this country.
Perhaps those people across the water did telephone and check. If they did, the situation is even worse. That would suggest that they were not even complying with the rules laid down about public expenditure by the IMF, the constituent Governments of which in the Common Market loaned us a few million quid apiece back in December in order that we could continue to purchase their goods. That is what it was all about.
My guess, however, is that there was no consultation and that the bureaucrats went ahead willy-nilly. Their reason for doing so is clear: they have to appear to be doing something. If we arrange to have direct elections, the people who are directly elected will feel the same. They will think that they have to do even more to harmonise everything they can lay their hands on. Directives of this sort, therefore, arise not from a desire to produce new industrial safety signs but from the desire of the bureaucrats to show that they are earning their money—and pretty good money it is, too. I do not know the exact amounts, but the Continental standard of payments would leave us breathless.
My hon. Friend the Minister must tell us whether he is prepared to stand up for the coal mining industry in this country or to accede to the stupid requests of the Common Market. He must say whether he is prepared to point out that the IMF conditions laid down in December prevent us from taking part in this costly and unnecessary exercise. When I make requests for new schools in Bolsover, I am told that the money is not available. When it comes to the Common Market, however, the money can be found for anything. That is not to say that we get more out than we put in.
One of my friends in Bolsover suggested to me recently that propaganda about how much money was coming out of the Common Market was being spread for the benefit of the British people. But he said that it was rather like the story of the starving man and the dog. The man cut the dog's tail off, stewed it and consumed the gravy and all the bits of meat that were on it. Then he gave the dog his bone back. That is what is happening with payments to and from the

Common Market. The loans and grants are minute compared with the sacrifices that we are having to make. In addition we get documents such as this, which my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to foist on the House and the miners' union.
I thought that there would have been some sort of consultation not only with the miners' union but with the miners' group in the House. But no one has been to the miners' group and talked about this draft directive. The Government have blithely come along and slipped it in thinking that no one would be present because no Whip is being applied to the debate. There is a Whip on for me. It is high time that the Department of Employment fully understood what its job is. It is to come here and be consistent. If there is no money for the Health and Safety Commission, or if it has to be abandoned or adjourned for a period because of the money involved, it is not right to come along and spend taxpayers' money on proposals of which we have no need.
For all those reasons I urge my hon. Friend to take this draft directive back, to send someone across on a ship and, if that someone is so fanatical about Europe, to tell him to stay there with this draft directive. This is only one of the first shots in the battle that will take place if the Government dare to introduce direct elections. I am ready for a fight and there are many people outside the House who will fortify me to carry on the fight. There will be hon. Members as well who will continue to fight. The Common Market has been a disaster from beginning to end and the British nation, now faced with massive food price increases and control of wages, is just beginning to understand it.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: After that speech from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I think that the Minister might well need some armour plating. It was strange to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about fighting to the death. Anyone would think that the hon. Gentleman was talking about a repressive measure which grinds his constituents into the ground. Anyone who wandered into the Chamber during the hon. Gentleman's speech could be forgiven for mistaking it as that.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Bolsover did not come along and say how much he favoured the proposal. Most of the hon. Gentleman's points about the European Community were not actually relevant to the point that we are discussing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made a perfectly fair point when he said that he did not like nannying of people or everyone being told what he should do. He went on to say that we do not have many immigrant workers in this country. It is probably true that we have fewer than countries like Germany and others in the EEC. But, our having joined the EEC, where there is a free movement of labour, this is likely to happen. It could even happen the other way. Our people could go and work in Europe. Constituents of the hon. Member for Bolsover, faced with the present high rate of unemployment, might decide to go and work in Europe. They would want protection as much as anyone else.
One must consider this matter in the context of the Community as a whole. We may at present have fewer immigrant workers working in Britain, but in the years ahead that may not be the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) felt that the draft directive was unnecessary and that no one wanted it. He went on to state that the House was wasting its time. My hon. Friend was perhaps being unfair to the Leader of the House, because he must appreciate that the Leader of the House is in great difficulty at the moment with regard to arranging debates. My hon. Friend's remark was, therefore, a rather unkind sideswipe. Time has to be filled and I welcome the fact that it has been filled by discussing this particular draft directive. Whatever the views, it is perfectly right for these points to be made and for proper discussion to take place in the maximum amount of time. I therefore welcome the fact that we are having this debate.

Mr. Moate: We are all anxious to help the Lord President with his particular problem of filling the parliamentary timetable with debates. My point was simply that if proposals like this are to come forward, we are anxious that they

should be debated in the Chamber. But is it not a waste of national time and energy to have proposals of this kind in the first place?

Mr. Grylls: That is a slightly different point. I hope to deal with it shortly.
I wish to make a further comment to the hon. Member for Bolsover. He gave the impression that no one in the trade union movement actually wanted the draft directive. I have a copy of a letter signed by Lionel Murray, the General Secretary of the TUC, which says that he welcomes it and thinks that it is a very good thing. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that he failed to consult the NUM. That is something I cannot rectify. It is something which must be rectified in the debate. But since the TUC speaks for a proportion of organised labour, it is right that the hon. Gentleman should know that in a letter dated 10th December the General Secretary, Mr. Lionel Murray, gave a general welcome to it. To be absolutely accurate, Len Murray's letter said in the last paragraph that he did not like the running man proposal. I do not like it and I do not think that the Minister likes the running man exit sign.

Mr. Skinner: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand—or perhaps he does—the whole idea of the Common Market and the way in which it operates. The very fact that the letter is signed by Len Murray is indicative of the way in which it operates, namely, on the basis of the very top heads of the trade union movement. In other words, what is good for Len Murray and perhaps a few others on the TUC is good for the whole of the working class. That is how the Common Market operates. That is why it is in the mess that it is. That is why some of us want to fight, not for Len Murray, who signed the letter on behalf of 11 million people—it could even have been Lawrence Daly or Joe Gormley who signed it—but for all the people inside and outside the trade union movement, so that they may have a chance of understanding from those whom they elected—they did not elect Lionel Murray—what the issue is. That is one of the reasons why we resent the whole structure and paraphernalia of the Common Market.

Mr. Grylls: I should be ruled out of order if I became involved in discussions on the referendum and those who voted in favour of remaining in the Community. A more important point is that trade union leaders and members of trade unions are participating in Europe. There is a Social Affairs Committee which is doing good work. It is important that this type of draft directive should be considered. If this sort of thing is to come out of the Common Market, it is important to have contributions from the TUC and from individual trade unions that have valid points to make.

Mr. Woodall: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Len Murray is saying that a warning, mandatory or emergency sign, which will be a yellow triangle with a black edge, is wanted by British coal miners?

Mr. Grylls: Perhaps I should have read the whole of Mr. Murray's letter. It simply states in the first paragraph that the TUC agreees with the draft directive and thinks it a good idea. It does not mention the problem of the collieries. As the Minister said that has come out elsewhere. But there was no indication that this matter can be resolved anywhere within the Community itself. I cannot put words into Len Murray's mouth: I simply say what he wrote when asked for his views.
This draft directive has been floating around Europe for some time. Much of the work was begun in the International Organisation for Standardisation, so a wider body was associated from the early days.
The House should consider the directive against two other major areas in which there has been an attempt at harmonisation in recent years. The first does not apply to the EEC at all. This is the area of international transport signs, the Hazchem signs on tankers, warning of chemicals and other hazardous materials. That work was done under the auspices of the United Nations in the early 1970s. I agree that we should get as much agreement as possible, but we must start somewhere. That one started in a wider grouping, but what the EEC has done is at least a step in the right direction.
The other area is that of consumer signs on packets, tins and bottles. I hesitate

to alarm those who do not favour this trend, but I understand that there may be another draft directive soon on consumer signs. That may be a horror to many people, but much work is being done on these matters.
It may be asked why there should be three separate groups considering these matters. Perhaps the multitude of different signs has to be reduced to three groups before they can be fitted into one.
Our main problem is whether this directive should remain a directive or whether it should be simply a recommendation, as the Government would have preferred. We understand from the Minister's evidence dated April last year that most of the members of the Community would prefer it to be a directive, so we are in a minority. I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and Faversham would say that we should go to the stake on that. If we use our veto on every piece of Community legislation, we shall soon become the laughing stock of Europe. People will ask why we went in in the first place if we intended to fight everything. The veto is devalued if it is used every time.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend refers to our being the laughing stock of Europe. Surely it is the other way around: the Common Market is the laughing stock of the people of this country, is it not?

Mr. Grylls: That is a matter of opinion which it would be wrong to debate now. We all know and respect my hon. Friend's views, as we do those of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
What is the Community doing about safety generally? Rightly, it has put a high premium on safety at work in all possible areas. The Advisory Committee for Safety, Hygiene, Health and Protection at Work was set up in June 1974 with specific themes of activity suggested by member Governments—dangerous products, benzine in industry, risks from vinyl chloride, noise, fibres, gases and vapours. All will be covered by the committee. It may not produce directives, but it is surely right that these matters should be considered by the Community as a whole.
There was a great dispute about vinyl chloride a few years ago after a discovery


in France that the production process could lead to long-term health damage to workers. It had been produced for many years until this danger was discovered in a French factory by a research chemist. Since then there has been an enormous amount of research in America and Britain, and many technical precautions are being taken.
That was a transnational development. Are we to say that we are an isolated island and will take no notice of anything discovered in France? The consideration of vinyl chloride undertaken by the Community is important and should be valuable for us. It is fair to quote that experience and to say that there should be some working together in considering other potential hazards at work—and some harmonisation at the same time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely the fact that research on these subjects, as on a whole range of other matters, takes place in the United States is no possible reason for common legislation being imposed upon the United States and upon this country. There is no relationship between where the legislative power ought to lie and the international comity which permits an exchange of information in the scientific and technological field.

Mr. Grylls: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the scientific, research and technological interchange among countries has been going on for hundreds of years. I merely quoted that example as an indication of the amount of work that has been going on in Europe.
As to whether this should be a directive, I think that the Minister accepted that the Government are unlikely to get their way in the Council of Ministers. The European Communities Sub-Committee of the House of Lords considered this matter carefully, taking evidence from the officials of the Health and Safety Executive. One of them said that it was the view of the Council of Ministers that this ought to be a directive, and added:
So it would look as though the chances are that this will become a directive.
I do not want to get that official into trouble. He was giving his view as a member of the Health and Safety Executive, but it was given before a public Committee of Parliament.
The more that one has read about this matter the more it appears that what that official said is right; my own feeling is that it is right, but not everyone is likely to agree. Despite one or two exceptions tonight, it is generally agreed widely in industry throughout Europe and in this country that there is a need for standardisation. Whether that is best achieved by regulation or by a recommendation is a matter of opinion.
After all, there are 6 million migrant workers in Europe, many going to new places where they cannot speak the language. For instance, many workers at the BSC plant in Sheffield come from Europe as well as the Commonwealth and do not speak English. They could be in danger. There is also the question of the multinational companies, which commonly practise a wide exchange of executives, workers and health and safety officers from one country to another. It would be impertinent of us to assume that those who come here can speak English and it is unlikely that our people can speak French, German or Italian. Certainly a common system of signs would be sensible for the multinational companies.
In the chemical industry, tanker drivers regularly enter different factories all over Europe. No doubt most who come to this country cannot speak English and it is safe to asume that English drivers going to Europe cannot speak those languages. They go into factories driving tankers which carry hazardous, perhaps toxic, materials. They see various hazard warning signs. Does it not make sense that those signs should be the same wherever they are? With all these large tankers, container lorries and so on going around Europe, the hazards presented to the drivers as well as to other people should be considered.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend asked whether that made sense and seemed to address the question to me. It would make sense if it were done through the International Organisation for Standardisation, but not in this little penny packet of the Nine countries of Europe. Let us have a much wider view of life than this enclosed suburban Community. Let us deal through international organisations so that Spanish and Portuguese lorry drivers, too, have similar signs, and not


just the people in the Community. My hon. Friend must look more widely.

Mr. Grylls: I do indeed look more widely. I hope for the day when Portugal and Spain become members of the Community, when they will automatically be able to introduce these regulations, if they become a directive.
I agree that it is a fair point that one would hope to see these common signs, if they are adopted, spread more widely into other countries—for example, into the United States and further into Europe and the Mediterranean countries. However, it would be sensible if the House said "Let us take one step at a time". This is a step forward for the Nine countries. Instead of nine separate symbols, at least we shall have one.
Let us move on after that. There are problems, because in the United Kingdom and in Europe there is a variety of different signs. That happens even in this country. ICI set up its own system of safety signs within its own plant about 10 years ago. I understand that they are good signs. Ford of Europe, again a multinational company, has totally different sets of signs. My hon. Friends may not mind that, but it leads to potential dangers, and it would surely be more sensible that over a fair period they should all be put on the same basis.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has been most courteous in giving way. I want to raise a technical point about the standardisation of signs. Is it not nonsense that in the draft directive proposals for international signs should be different from the present road signs?

Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend makes a fair observation. I am labouring somewhat slowly to get to that part of my speech dealing with that problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me.
I hope that the Minister will accept that at present there is confusion. I mentioned ICI and Ford, workers coming to Sheffield, and perhaps our workers going to Europe. There is a case for standardisation. Whether that be by directive or recommendation is another matter. The sooner signs can conform, at least in the Nine, the better. I hope that I am gradually convincing my hon. Friends, if not Labour Members.
One more weight which would tip the scale in my favour comes from the definition of the words "flammable material". Under the petroleum regulations, the word "flammable" is defined as describing:
a petroleum liquid that vaporises at not less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit or 22·8 degrees centrigrade.
Under the fire regulations, also introduced by the Government, the same word "flammable" is defined as describing:
a liquid that vaporises at not less than 90 degrees Fahrenheit or 32 degrees centrigrade.
If someone walks around a plant and sees the words, "Danger, Flammable Material", he does not have a clue what that sign means. "Flammable" in that instance could mean anything. That is one more point which should be taken into account.
I take a giant chemical works where tankers are coming and going. It is desirable that road signs should be harmonised with the signs in the place of work, because the sign on a tanker which contains, for example, a highly dangerous inflammable material such as phosgene, could vary between factories. This leads to confusion amongst the drivers. When one is dealing with potentially a life and death matter to the driver or other workers, there is a good argument for having that harmonisation.
I turn to the question of "No Smoking" signs. At present there are three different varieties—the straightforward "No Smoking", "Smoking Strictly Prohibited"and" Smoking Prohibited". If one goes into a factory where one or other of the three signs is displayed, one does not know how serious the risk of smoking is. Someone seeing the "No Smoking" sign may think that the danger is not serious because smoking is not "Strictly Prohibited". The sign may only say "Smoking Prohibited". That is another nonsense. Perhaps the boss is a crank and does not like smoking. This leaves a vagueness in the minds of the people in the factory about the danger they might be facing. We would be wise to do something about that.
Three years ago this House passed the Health and Safety at Work Act without much difficulty. It was agreed by both sides. In that Act much greater care is


placed on employers and employees in factories in safety matters. Following on the Act, I believe that it is perfectly logical that we should take greater steps, because of some of the risks, to ensure that every considerable care is taken to protect everyone working in Europe against toxic and hazardous materials.
There are some problems in implementing this draft directive. First, there is the question of timing. The EEC Commission asked for 18 months. The CBI in its evidence broadly agreed, as did the TUC, but felt that there should be a five-year transition period. The argument is probably somewhere in between. Whatever our views about this legislation, if it is implemented I think that the House would want to ensure that every worker, every executive, every conceivable person in industry is thoroughly trained about the signs. This should be done over a maximum period. Perhaps the Health and Safety Executive could play an important rôle.
The cost to industry has also been mentioned. This is difficult to assess and is, to a certain extent, tied in with the question of timing. Obviously, if it were proposed that all the signs should be put up as from the date the directive was passed, it would be grotesquely expensive and quite ridiculous. But if there is a sensible transitional period, given time for worn-out old signs to be replaced by new ones, too much money need not be wasted.
It is sensible to propose that as and when the new signs are introduced the translation is attached to them for a limited time. People may like to see the description underneath the new signs, which would help the education process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham asked about the crossbar controversy and the question of confusion over road signs. The value of the crossbar is that it is simple. It describes what one must not do; the triangular signs describe hazards or potential dangers; vile circular signs tell us that we must do such things as putting on goggles, safety helmets and boots; and the square signs indicate the direction of exits.
The Minister said in his evidence that if the road signs had to be changed, it would involve much expenditure. I accept that. I think that most people will

readily understand that the crossbar sign concerns something that is forbidden, and that the triangular sign, like the sign at a crossroads, warns of a potential hazard. Whether those signs must be harmonised with road signs is a much wider question. I agree that it would be absurd and very expensive to change all the road signs, and I do not believe it to be necessary.
With any safety measure people will say that expense is involved. Industry is busy implementing the Health and Safety at Work Act, the cost of which I believe to be justified—otherwise, we should not have passed the Act. The signs will similarly involve cost.
The British Standards Institution, which has played quite a big part in the work, has produced a document containing signs, though rather fewer signs than in the European document. The Institution has done a great deal of work, and the House should congratulate it on that work. It has consulted widely in industry and has consulted organisations outside. The International Organisation for Standardisation has also done a great deal of work.
The British Standards Institution instigated research at the University of Aston's Department of Safety, Hygiene and Health, in which two signs were compared. A Department of Employment sign warning people to wear something over their ears to protect them from noise showed a man putting his fingers in his ears. The equivalent EEC sign showed a man wearing a hearing protection set. I thought that the fingers-in-ears sign was rather easier to understand, but the Department found, after asking many workers, that the EEC sign was preferred.
I have tried to show that there are good reasons for the proposal. Whether it should be put into effect as a recommendation or a directive is a matter which the House will want to discuss. I think that there will not be harmonisation without force and power behind it.
I want to suggest how the Minister should respond to the draft directive. I have spoken about the transition time. We must harmonise, but at a steady and sensible pace. The EEC has proposed 18 months and the CBI has suggested five years. Perhaps three years would be


reasonable and would not be too expensive for industry.
I agree with the Minister that he must make it 100 per cent. clear to the EEC that we do not like the running man sign. Perhaps it would be wrong to say that in Europe people run away from an accident, but it is certainly true that we do not do it in England. Our training is to walk, not run, and therefore that sign is wrong.
It may send the blood pressure of one or two of my hon. Friends even higher when I say this, but I hope that the Government will press the EEC to harmonise the consumer product hazard signs and try to bring them into line with the draft directive. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that if that can be widened to cover as many as possible of those involved in international road transport signs, so much the better.
Fourthly, the Health and Safety Commission should insist on more training. The British Standards Institution has a rôle to play. Perhaps the regulations, if the directive is accepted by the Community, could be made in accordance with the BS 5378 document. If further signs are incorporated, further regulations can be made. But it is important that consultation is carried out through the Health and Safety Executive.
The Opposition believe that it would be churlish not to welcome at least the spirit of the work that has gone into producing the harmonisation of signs at the place of work. Most of us would certainly welcome the detail of the majority of the signs, with the exceptions I have mentioned.
I hope that the Minister will try harder in one or two areas. The Opposition do not ask him to push hard to make the proposal a recommendation and not a directive. I think that we feel that it will have to be a directive if we are to get any movement, but there should be a sensible transition period. We see the proposal making a major contribution to safety over the years. It is a long-term matter. We shall not see all the signs change overnight. It would be wrong to suggest that that would happen, and it would be extravagant if it did.
This is a step in the right direction. The Government should press on with

this good work, subject to the conditions and ideas that I have put forward. I hope that the Minister will not be diverted too much by the flak from both sides of the House in this not very well attended debate—though I add that those present are of a high quality. I am sure that the view of the majority of hon. Members is that the Government should press on with the good work in the hope that we shall see a sensible directive accepted by the Community, because we believe that it will make work safer for all the people in the Community.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. John Grant: In replying, I shall not try to speak for the silent majority.
Several hon. Members who took part in the debate came into the Chamber after my opening remarks. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was one. Although I do not suggest that I should have converted him to passionate support for the EEC if he had listened to me, it may be helpful if I briefly repeat the Government's position, which comes down to three points.
First, we are seeking a more flexible, non-binding instrument and not a directive. Secondly, we clearly believe that there must be a longer implementation period than the 18 months envisaged by the Commission. Thirdly—many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to this—we think that the running man sign should be deleted.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) talked particularly about the need for a wider base than the Community. He spoke about the OECD, the International Organisation for Standardisation and so on. Nothing proposed here precludes any extension. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that if the Community took this kind of action, it might be said to be setting the pace. One would hope that other countries would wish to follow suit, and that the idea might spread through organisations such as the OECD.

Mr. Marten: If the Community passes a directive, we must all have the signs. Then we might get into conversation with other countries, which might want to alter them. It all seems to me so wasteful. Why not get all the countries together first and do it all at once?

Mr. Grant: The short answer is that the world is not that simple, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. As he acknowledges, it is not easy to get even the countries of the Nine to agree on such a matter. If one tries to secure wider agreement, there will presumably be an increase in the problems in the particular circumstances of particular countries.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the obstacle to trade. I would not make a meal of that, but I was interested in his remarks about immigrants. He asked where he could obtain guidance on the number of people in the immigrant community who might have benefited from existing safety signs. I cannot give that guidance, any more than one can estimate the number of people who, because of signs, have avoided serious injury. I do not think that it is possible to do that, but clearly there is a language problem at the place of work.
We are discussing symbols and it is important, not just for workers coming into Europe but for workers from the new Commonwealth, to have much more easily is signs. My Department is trying to increase language training in industry, and we regard this as a matter of considerable importance.
I was asked whether this issue would go to the Council of Ministers. It will do so, and the directive will have to be a unanimous decision of the Council.
I come to cost. When discussing the coal and steel industries, we are, of course, discussing good industries. The coal industry has a sophisticated and sensible system of safety signs, which is being installed at an estimated cost of £500,000. Many other industries have poor safety records, and in some instances appalling safety records. Those are the industries about which we are primarily concerned.

Mr. Moate: Will the Minister confirm that in the bad industries—and I am sure that he is right to say that they exist—this directive will make no difference, because it will not be mandatory?

Mr. Grant: That is so, but subsequently the House can make regulations on the basis of recommendations from the Health and Safety Commission, so that in particular industries where there are particular hazards we can take action. That industry would be bound by this system of

signs. There is encouragement for people to get on and do something about the situation.
I cannot give a general estimate of the cost and it would be absurd to do so. There are many industries involved and there are varied situations with which to cope. It would be fallacious to try to give what could only be a wide guesstimate.

Mr. David Madel: Is it not a fact that it would be industry that would have to bear that cost and that the Health and Safety Commission would not pay for the alterations?

Mr. Grant: That is correct. I shall make a similar point about training costs later.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) and for Bolsover concentrated their remarks on the coal industry although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover ranged slightly wider in his contribution. It is not true that there were no consultations. There was a great deal of consultation. There may have been some fault. We are dealing with the whole range of industry, and at the outset the Commission probably did not go to the Coal and Steel Community as it should have done. I am not too sure about that, but that is my understanding of the position. I understand that subsequently the Commission consulted those industries. Certainly the Health and Safety Commission was brought into the picture from the word "go".
The CBI and the TUC are represented directly on the Health and Safety Commission. Furthermore, the National Coal Board is a member of the CBI and the National Union of Mineworkers is a member of the TUC. If there were a fault in communication, I do not think that it can be laid at the door of the bureaucrats in Brussels. I repeat that there was a good deal of consultation.
The subject was withdrawn from the agenda of the Council of Ministers indirectly as a result of the NCB representations. It is not fair to suggest that this proposal has been steamrollered through without the mining industry being aware of the situation.
I said earlier that we hoped that the Health and Safety Commission would


resolve the problems in the coal industry. This is one more reason for a flexible, non-binding instrument and also for a much longer implementation period.

Mr. Skinner: Let us get the matter quite clear. Is the Minister saying that the letter received by the Miners Group, signed by Lawrence Daly, a member of the TUC General Council and General Secretary of the NUM, is lying when it says that there has been no consultation with the NUM? After the union discovered that the decision had been made, it went to the Department of Employment. It is stated in that letter that the Department told Mr. Daly that it could not get the coal mining industry out of this. The Department said that it would create difficulties for other industries. That was in the letter sent by Lawrence Daly to the Miners Group. Is the Minister challenging that statement? Let us have no more nonsense or shilly-shallying. Does he deny the existence of those words in that letter?

Mr. Grant: It is not a question of shilly-shallying. It would have been helpful if my hon. Friend had read the letter.

Mr. Skinner: I have read the letter.

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend should have read it to the House so that we could see what Mr. Daly had said. I am not accusing Mr. Daly of lying. I am saying that the Government have not recommended acceptance of a directive and are seeking exemption for coal mining.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard in the last few minutes arguments focusing on the subject of the letter to which I referred. I think that it is necessary for the House to understand what is in that letter. I have referred to it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall). It is dated 14th March and is signed by Mr. Lawrence Daly, General Secretary of the NUM. It is headed "Industrial Safety Signs" and reads:
Dear Alec"—
he is the Secretary of the Miners Group
It has been drawn to my attention that there is to be a debate in the House at 10 o'clock on Tuesday 15th March 1975"—

obviously the writer does not understand how this place works, but that is neither here nor there—
on the above subject and I wish you to take note of the following. These proposed signs are the product of the EEC who drew them up without consultation with the ECSC. When this came to our notice, Mr. Gormley wrote to the EEC complaining about the lack of consultation with two major industries—i.e. coal and steel—and requested that the matter be referred to the Health and Safety Commission of the ECSC. This course was ultimately taken and we were given to understand that coal mining would be excluded and a working party was to be set up to deal with the coal mining industry. The British coal mining industry is not only concerned about the lack of consultation, but also because of the fact that the National Coal Board had already spent £500,000 on a system of safety signs which we would argue are both superior and more logical than the ones proposed by the EEC. You can understand, therefore, our concern about the forthcoming debate, particularly if, as we are given to understand, the Department of Employment are advising acceptance on the basis that if the coal mining industry were to contract out, it would create difficulties elsewhere. I trust that the Miners Parliamentary Group will be able to use their good offices to oppose such action.
That is what I am doing.

Mr. Grant: I am aware of what my hon. Friend is doing. Two points arise from that letter. First, Mr. Daly makes the point that there was no consultation with ECSC in the preliminary stages. That is also my understanding of the situation. It does not mean that there was not a great deal of consultation throughout, and I have already made that clear.
As for the Department of Employment advising that we should have to accept a directive, that is not so. I made that clear in my opening remarks and my hon. Friend will have to accept that from me.
I now deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). The hon. Gentleman was especially critical of the running man sign, among other things. There is general agreement in the House about the inadequacy of that sign. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that the whole scheme is unnecessary. I do not think that it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover began his remarks by saying that he was pleased that we were having the debate, although his reasons were rather different from mine as he wanted to debate the fundamental


issue of the Common Market, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss health and safety. I do not think that we have enough debates in the House on health and safety matters, which are of fundamental importance. A harmonised system of safety signs is of fundamental importance to health and safety, but not to the exclusion of many other measures.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) made a persuasive case for harmonisation. The hon. Gentleman expressed his preference for a directive. I have already explained why we do not go along with him on that issue. We prefer a non-binding instrument.
I shall not pick up the hon. Gentleman on each of the specific matters that he raised at the end of his remarks. We shall consider them carefully. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent observations. For example, he mentioned training. The Health and Safety Executive is involved in a variety of consultations and considerations on matters such as the role of safety officers and advice on the appointment of union safety representatives and safety committees. All these matters have a bearing on what is now before the House, but the main training responsibility under health and safety at work legislation is on employers. There is a requirement on them to consult employees. That is where the main responsibility lies, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that training must be an important element.
I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friends about the conduct of business in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has raised a number of the more fundamental issues. The overriding factor in this debate should be industrial health and safety. If we reject the broad principles that are proposed in this EEC proposition, we are rejecting the accumulated advice of the Health and Safety Commission, on which the TUC and the CBI are represented. We should also be rejecting the advice of the British Standards Institution and other bodies which all believe that harmonisation is worth while.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury that some British workers, or British workers generally, may have less to gain from this sort of

move than many of their counterparts on the European mainland. However, we should not move away from this measure for that reason. If we are furthering the cause of working people, whether here or elsewhere within the Community, that in itself is worth while, providing that there is no particular detriment to working people in our own country. I do not think that a case has been made to that effect. On that basis I ask the House to accept the motion.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Donald Coleman were appointed Tellers for the Ayes and Mr. Dennis Skinner was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a Second Teller of the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared the Ayes had it.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/960/76 and the Government's memorandum dated 10th March on Safety Information at the Workplace.

Orders of the Day — HIGH COURT ATTENDANCES (OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE)

8.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
That leave be given for the proper Officers of the House to attend the trials of the action between Metzger and others and the Department of Health and Social Security and to produce the Reports of Debates and Committee Proceedings to which reference is desired to be made and formally to prove the same according to their competence, as prayed for in the Petition relating to the action between Metzger and others and the Department of Health and Social Security presented to this House; yesterday, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports.
When I had occasion to present a similar petition to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was rebuked for using gobbledegook, for having failed to explain to the House the purpose of the motion and for not having given notice of my intention to move the petition. As I understand it, it has not been the practice to give notice, but with the assistance of Officers of the House, for which I am extremely grateful, we have been able to adopt a procedure that enabled full


details of the petition to appear in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, and the motion appear on today's Order Paper. If the House will bear with me, I shall offer a brief explanation.
When it is desired to produce evidence before a court of anything said in the House, it is necessary to petition the House for leave that that should be done. That is dealt with in "Erskine May", on page 88. I had reason to elaborate on it somewhat on 18th July and 21st July 1975 in volume 895, column 1921 and volume 896, column 226 of the Official Report.
The petition relates to an action brought by recipients of retirement pensions against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for declarations to the effect that my right hon. Friend did not properly apply the procedures laid down by the Social Security Act 1975 to ensure that pensions are uprated in accordance with the level of earnings or prices. The petitioners are the solicitors respectively for the plaintiffs and the defendant. They are agreed that it would be helpful to the court if certain extracts from the Official Report were available so that the court might see what my right hon. Friend, his predecessor, and their junior Ministers told the House were the considerations they had in mind on the relevant occasions.
I am satisfied that it is desirable for the administration of justice between the parties that the court should have that assistance. I ask the House to give leave accordingly.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Solicitor-General and the House will be relieved to know that I am in full support of the motion. Furthermore, I do not intend in any sense to challenge the procedures, as happened. I think, on the earlier occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I go further and say that I hope that what happened yesterday and today, with the petition laid yesterday and the motion appearing on the Order Paper today, will be regarded as a precedent for the future.
It always seemed to be an unsatisfactory procedure whereby a petition could be lodged with the House and on

the same day a motion immediately moved, when by its very nature there could have been no notice to any right hon. or hon. Member that that was to happen. No doubt the Solicitor-General has seared into his mind the several hours of debate to which he was subjected when the subject matter of the action was the publication of the Crossman diaries.
I have before me the petition as it was reported in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday's debate. It is proposed to produce to the court in Metzger and Others v. The Department of Health and Social Security a number of debates concerning the obligation to raise pensions and other long-term benefits by the more advantageous movement of prices or earnings. When I say "advantageous" I mean advantageous to the pensioner. I shall quote only four brief passages from the debates that it is proposed to put before the court. It would be quite wrong for me to refer at all to the proceedings or to advert to the question of their likely outcome, but I would hope that the following passages would at any rate be among those which the court will have.
On 22nd May 1975 the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said this, after having announced increases in pensions:
These increases are in line with the movement in earnings of nearly 15 per cent. that has taken place in the period from August 1974 to March 1975, which is the relevant period for calculating this uprating."—[Official Report, 22nd May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1624.]
There was a very rapid period of inflation between then and when those upratings took effect. The then Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—said this on 24th June:
Changes in the movement of earnings and prices after March 1975 will of course be reflected in the next following uprating."—[Official Report, 24th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 376.]
The third quotation which I shall make, again from one of the documents to be produced by the House, is from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, perhaps, one of the most astonishing passages in any Budget Speech that I have read:
Now that the rate of inflation is coming down, I believe that an increase of £3 in the


rate of pension for a married couple would be more than enough to match the actual and likely improvement in earnings to the 12 months to November. But I have listened carefully to representations from those who have urged me to go beyond this. In the light of these representations I have decided to raise the married rate by £3·30 to £24·50."—[Official Report, 6th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 269–70.]
At that point, as the House will remember the right hon. Gentleman actually won a cheer from his hon. Friends.
My fourth quotation is from the next day, again from the right hon. Member for Blackburn:
now that the rate of inflation is coming down it would no longer be appropriate to base the uprating on a reference period which lies wholly in the past."—[Official Report, 7th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 426.]
It is not for me to say what the court will make of the contrasts and contradictions in those passages from Ministers' speeches that we are now proposing—

The Solicitor-General: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but if we are to have words such as "contradictions" I submit that we are getting very much into the field of the merits of the matter, which is sub judice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to relate what he was saying to the question whether the evidence should be given to the court.

Mr. Jenkin: If the Solicitor-General had contained himself for one half-minute further he would have heard me say that I was about to conclude my speech by saying that I can think of nothing but advantage that will come from allowing these passages and others referred to in this petition to be openly discussed, read and repeated again and again in the court. I therefore entirely support the motion that the Solicitor-General has presented.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That leave be given for the proper Officers of the House to attend the trials of the action between Metzger and others and the Department of Health and Social Security and to produce the Reports of Debates and Committee Proceedings to which reference is desired to be made and formally to prove the same according to their competence, as prayed for in the Petition relating to the action between Metzger

and others and the Department of Health and Social Security presented to this House yesterday, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Reports.

Orders of the Day — TOYS (SAFETY REGULATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: The case I bring to the notice of the House tonight not only concerns my constituent Mr. Marcus and his business in Swaffham in my constituency but goes far wider and illustrates the difficulties with which business men must struggle in these days. It also shows the great influence that civil servants have in great Government Departments. They provide an endless stream of orders, regulations and Bills to Ministers, who have far too little time to consider at leisure whether they are necessary.
I believe also that the civil servants are determined that whatever the level of unemployment is, their numbers will increase. Joe Haine's book, which I am half-way through, makes these points time and time again, and it is a great pity that the Press, instead of settling on certain other points, did not give these points more emphasis.
When I was a Lord Commissioner—a breed of Whip—I came up against the will of the Treasury officials when they wanted blank forms signed which would later be used for authorising anything from judges' expenses to millions of pounds for nationalised industries. The pressures were enormous and, if it had not been for a very strong minded Chief Whip, I might have succumbed.
I believe that all of us in Parliament have been too weak in allowing this flow of orders and regulations to go unchecked and for far too long we have meekly accepted this burden as a part of modern life.
Fortunately, my constituent, a man of remarkable energy, does not suffer foolish regulations gladly. He is a manufacturer and importer of toys. To understand this case it is necessary to appreciate the timetable that he carries out in the normal course of his business. Briefly, he will go to toy fairs in the Far East, in Milan,


and in Nuremburg in, say, October. He will receive samples in November. Then—this is a vital point in my argument—in December, or perhaps a little later, he will send off an irrevocable letter of credit. The following June or July he will receive the goods, and then he will pack them and distribute them to retailers. In times of inflation he would put in a much larger order than normal and part of that order would go direct into the warehouse for repeat orders for retailers.
It can be seen that very often the whole purchase may not be sold until up to 24 months after the ordering process started. This is a normal business pattern in this business, but it seems to have been completely ignored by the civil servants and Government Departments when they drafted these regulations which were published in August 1974 and came into effect on 1st October 1974 with two months' notice only. What chance had Mr. Marcus, my constituent, to dispose of the goods, which had been seen a year beforehand and ordered in the previous December, previous to the regulations coming into force?
This is my constituent's major complaint and mine. He tells me that he has about £30,000 worth of goods in store or withdrawn from retailers which he cannot sell because of these regulations which were brought in after he had ordered the goods.
In correspondence with me the Minister of State, whom I am glad to see here this evening to answer the debate, has consistently evaded this point. He has said in correspondence that he relies on the fact that trade associations were in negotiations with his officials from January 1974 until the regulations were produced in August 1974 and therefore the trade associations should have kept their members informed. My constituent denies that this was done in detail, and in any case surely the Minister would not expect him to stop ordering and to run down his business just because there might be new regulations in four to five months' time which might affect his business.
In any case my constituent understands that the main cause of the trouble is the thickness of metal which was finally fixed at the last minute at a minimum of 0·5

mms. Up to that time it was understood to be 0·3 mms. Nothing could have altered the fact that goods had been irrecoverably ordered before the regulations took effect. I must keep hammering that point because of the enormous loss that my constituent faces. All the goods that he has in his warehouse are those that he had to take back from retailers and that he cannot sell. The goods were bought when they were legal but they are not now legal because of the regulations.
When the regulations came into effect the Minister adopted a strange double standard by notifying local councils—whose newly created safety inspectors are responsible for implementing the regulations—of the full details but not notifying the companies that were importing the toys. The Minister left it to a hand-out to the Press instead of an advertisement that was paid for, and to the trade associations, to inform the 20 or 30 firms engaged in that type of business. That is a form of discrimination against the firms that are producing and importing this type of toy.
In a letter to me the Minister refers to the impracticability of informing all the firms himself. He says that there are several hundreds, but his figures included all the retailers, who are not held responsible if they possess goods that contravene the regulations. That is correct and fair. They should not be held responsible. If the Minister and his officials or the safety inspectors had taken the trouble to consult my constituent and the managements of other similar firms before the regulations were introduced, more time would have been given to them to dispose of the goods.
Although it does not alter my case one jot or tittle, my constituent did not know that he was transgressing the regulations until late in 1975 when he was prosecuted. As a result Mr. Marcus, who so far as I know has never in 14 years received a complaint about any of his toys and who has a good reputation, was justifiably annoyel. That puts it mildly.
He corresponded with a Mr. Stacey of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, which had taken over from the Home Office. He asked why the regulations were necessary. He was told in letters that there had been a constant flow of complaints and, when pressed for details about toys with sharp edges


Mr. Stacey in a letter dated 23rd June 1976 told him:
As I explained in my letter of 8th June the six accidents recorded as being due to sharp edges on toys were included in statistics which were collected in 1973–74 from six hospital areas.
The letter continues—and I hope that the Minister will note this:
Projected on a national basis the figure is equivalent to at least 150 accidents a year throughout England and Wales.
I always knew that Government statistics were suspect but this method beats the band. It involves six accidents in six hospital board areas, not one of which was investigated in detail to discover whether it was a matter of swallowing a button or of a cut hand or lip caused by handling a toy with a sharp metal edge. That is an extraordinary way in which to pass a regulation to which importers and manufacturers have to conform.
I shall tell the House of an incident that makes a nonsense of the regulations on the thickness of metal and a nonsense of the spate of prosecutions, which my constituent prefers to call persecutions. When he was coming home from work after attending a court hearing in the heat of last summer my constituent stopped to buy a can of Coke. As he walked back to his car, he pulled the ring tab and cut his finger. On the way home he thought the matter over and sent the ring tab to Quality Control Service Ltd. of Wembley and asked it to measure the thickness of the metal tab. I have their report dated 13th July 1976 and addressed to my constituent. It states:
Report on Sample of Ring Tab from Coke Tin. Tests required:

1. Measure thickness of metal tab.
2. Determine presence of surface treatment."

The thickness of the metal tab was 0·34 mms—well under the minimum thickness for toys. The second finding was that both sides of the metal tab were coated with lacquer.
Thousands of Coke and other tins are used. My constituent does not want them to be made more expensive by making the metal thicker, but he believes that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that such containers

are used more frequently than his toys by the children who open and drink from them.
Surely the evidence that I have brought to the House shows the flimsy basis for the introduction of these regulations. They should be withdrawn or revised.
The case is symptomatic of the way in which a host of regulations have been introduced in the last 10 years—and I do not exempt my own Government's regulations. Business men and others cannot possibly understand them. There is little need for them and many are not relevant. They have done much to harm the country and to suppress initiative. Because of the number of inspectors that are needed to enforce such regulations rates and taxes have gone up faster than necessary.
Behind it, in my opinion, is the single-minded determination of the Civil Service to maintain and increase its employment and its influence and power. The civil servants honestly think that they know best. If one couples that with a Socialist Government, who have always stated that they know best, the result is disastrous.
The disaster behind all this lies in the damage done to Mr. Marcus, my constituent, and his business, and the other constituents of mine who are his employees. The fact remains that my constituent, when he was buying in the autumn and winter of 1973, could not possibly know that regulations were to be introduced in October 1974 which would prevent him from selling toys that he had bought. I ask the Minister to deny that or to give me a reason, if he can, why my constituent should have known when he was buying in the autumn and winter of 1973 that regulations would be introduced which would prevent him from selling toys a year later.
Will the Minister not admit, first, that the evidence on which these regulations were introduced was extremely flimsy and, secondly, that no adequate time was given to dispose of the toys that were in the pipeline? Finally, will he not be prepared to mitigate the loss to my constituent by either withdrawing and then revising these regulations or making monetary compensation for the loss that they have caused Mr. Marcus?

8.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has more than once referred in his speech to civil servants, and he has attached some blame for the mischief of which he complains this evening to civil servants. I reject that. So long as I am a Minister, I have full responsibility for regulations that are made, on my judgment, and sometimes I differ from the advice of my civil servants and sometimes I agree with it. Sometimes, I spend a good deal of time cogitating about regulations and trying to put myself in the position of a member of the public or a trader. That is the responsibility that I shall always take, and I reject the allegation that these regulations are made to satisfy an empire-building instinct among civil servants.
I come, secondly, to the evidence and the basis upon which these regulations were made. Regulations relating to the safety of toys were first made by the Home Office, under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, in 1967. They prescribed limits for lead and other toxic metals in paint on toys and prohibited the sale of toys made from celluloid on account of the fire risk. Although, from time to time, there was pressure for more comprehensive regulations, the Home Office, which remained responsible for consumer safety matters until October 1974, continued to hope and expect that compliance with the British Standard Code of Safety Requirements for Children's Toys—British Standard 3443—would be achieved through the voluntary co-operation of the toy trade.
The great majority of British manufacturers and most toy importers came to comply with this code. Many did so from way back in 1961. However, it became apparent from continuing complaints about unsafe toys that some were not doing so and eventually, towards the end of 1973—when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Dower—the Home Office decided to make further, more comprehensive regulations giving statutory support to some of the provisions of British Standard 3443, including those relating to sharp points and edges, the flammability of pile fabrics, the detachability of eyes, and facial features and

the maximum operating voltage of electrical toys. The decision was taken on the basis of the need to deal with obvious hazards which simply ought not to be presented by toys.
Of course, the Government have a responsibility to manufacturers and importers. I am bound to say that they also have a responsibility to young, vulnerable children who may be injured. There have been some fairly severe accidents to children, particularly in regard to doll's eyes, and I owe that part of the community as much a responsibility—perhaps even more so because they are young and vulnerable—as I owe other people.
There were full consultations with interested bodies. The Toys (Safety) Regulations 1974 were, as the hon. Gentleman said, made on 6th August 1974 and, with some exceptions, they came into force on 1st October 1974. There were very full consultations indeed between the time when the regulations were mooted by the Home Office towards the end of 1973 and the time when they came into effect in October 1974.
I know the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He says that Mr. Marcus gave an order abroad for these toys, as I understand it, before the idea had even emerged in public from the Home Office in 1973. I can understand Mr. Marcus's anguish and perhaps I ought to congratulate him on his persistence in this matter. I understand his side of the argument, that the order was placed and was irrevocable before the regulations, or even the proposals for them, had seen the light of day.
But I have two answers to that. First, it was known during 1973 that there was pressure for regulations and greater protection. Secondly, there was a British standard widely observed not only by British manufacturers but by importers. Many of them observed that standard as far back as 1961. That was the general practice of the trade. The general standard was accepted, was well known and was understood even in 1973.
I do not know whether it is right for me to give legal advice from the Dispatch Box, but I suppose that, in these circumstances, one way in which Mr. Marcus might have protected himself when he made the contract—and any importer


might be wise to do this—would have been by including a clause that provided a right for the importer to rescind the contract if the goods that were the subject of the contract became illegal in this country. There could be other circumstances where there might be quicker action over toy regulations.

Mr. Hawkins: I understand that once an irrevocable letter of credit has been given, the goods are paid for and are on their way, one cannot get one's money back even if the goods do not come up to the standard of the sample. This could apply to many things and I do not believe that such a clause appears in any contracts.
As for the Minister's point that this was well known throughout 1973, it was not known until early 1974 that negotiations were taking place.

Mr. Fraser: I am not suggesting that the regulations and the details of the regulations were known in 1973. I do suggest that there was a British standard that was widely observed for the protection of the public, particularly of children, and that Mr. Marcus could have taken that set of circumstances into account and might have anticipated that a widely observed safety standard might eventually be incorporated into law.
If one looks at it the other way round, a good many people could have lived in peril of importation or production of a dangerous product for a long time—that is, if one accepts the hon. Gentleman's argument that the regulations ought not to have come into force until all the goods for which orders had been placed had not only passed into warehouses but right through to the general public.

Mr. Hawkins: I think that I am correct in saying that these safety standards have existed since 1961, so that we might say that everybody was in peril from 1961 to 1974. It would have been fairer to give two years, or possibly only 18 months, to clear the pipeline of goods that had been ordered. That is the point that the Minister does not appear to have answered.

Mr. Fraser: I understand the argument and I know that when regulations are made—for instance, under the Weights and Measures Act—they are preceded by

a great deal of consultation. As far as possible, one tries to provide a reasonable time span for goods to pass through from the manufacturing stage to the wholesalers and retailers, but one cannot accommodate regulations to every particular circumstance.
I turn to the detail of the regulation and the effect upon the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Regulation 7 requires that edges of sheet metal up to a maximum thickness of 5 mm, used in toys, shall not be accessible to a child's fingers or, under normal conditions of use become so accessible without the use of tools, or that the edges of sheet metal shall be coated with a protective substance or be folded back. Many metal toys are made from sheet tinplate and these are particularly likely to have edges that are sharp enough to cut a child's finger. For these reasons it has become generally accepted practice in this country over the years and in some other countries—to take suitable precautions so that the edges of sheet metal toys are not accessible or are suitably protected.
It was for this reason that the provisions relating to sharp edges were included in the 1974 regulations. The toys marketed by Kitfix Hobby's Ltd. which have led to prosecutions are made of tin plate. The British Standards relating to sharp edges and points are similar to the provisions which have existed since 1961 in the British Code of Safety Requirements for Children's Toys and Playthings produced by the British Standards Institution technical committee upon which British Toy Manufacturers' Association and the Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Factors and Importers are represented. They are included in the revised edition of the code which was published in 1968.
Regulation 7 is consistent not only with the British Standards Code, but with the draft CEN standard for toys produced by the European Committee for Standardisation on which 15 countries, including the United Kingdom, are represented. Our delegation includes representatives of the British Toy Manufacturers' Association, and briefing of the delegation is undertaken by the BSI technical committee on which their representatives serve. The CEN standard is intended to form the basis of an EEC


directive which will be binding on all members.
The United States Manufacturers' Voluntary Product Standard for toys provides that edges of sheet metal that are less than 0·02 inches thick must be rolled back. This is similar to our requirement.
The first draft of the new regulations was circulated by the Home Office in January 1974 to consumer and safety organisations, local authority associations and all interested trade associations, including the British Toy Manufacturers' Association of which Kitfix Hobby's Limited is a member, the Association of Toy and Fancy Goods Factors and Importers and associations representing toy wholesalers and retailers. A number of comments were received about the proposed new regulations and they were all carefully considered by the Home Office before the regulations were made.
Some trade associations asked for operative dates to be deferred to allow for the disposal of existing stocks and later dates were adopted for some of the requirements. It was decided to keep 1st October 1974 as the operative date for the requirement relating to sharp points and edges, although the Home Office took into account all the factors involved, including the fact that the British Standard had been in existence since 1961, that most British toy manufacturers and importers had complied voluntarily with the code since it was published and that it was undesirable to permit over the pre-Christmas period the continued sale of toys with certain hazardous features, including the obvious and substantial hazards of sharp points and edges. Irrespective of whether the regulation was made or not, importers and manufacturers of toys still had a duty of care to the public. It is incorporated in and strengthened by the regulations which have been made.
On publicity, it is accepted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If laws were not operative until they had been notified to every person affected, it would be a long time before some health safety and consumer safety requirements were brought into operation.
I think that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West used to be an auctioneer. I am a solicitor. We both

know that laws are passed which affect our respective professions and neither of us would complain that a law operated against us even though we had not been personally notified. People such as Mr. Marcus belong to trade associations. Consultations take place with those associations and if people read the journals of the associations they are normally informed of the passage of regulations of this nature.
Mr. Marcus complained that he was not aware of the existence of the regulations until the first prosecution arose. He contended that he should have received individual notification about the regulations from the Home Office.
In order to bring new regulations and proposals for regulations to the attention of the trade, it was the practice of the Home Office—now continued by my Department—to rely, first, on the circulation of information to their members by the trade associations concerned during the period of consultations and when the regulations were finally made and, secondly, on the issue of Press notices to the national and trade press and to the media generally when the regulations were published and when they came into operation.
It is known that the British Toy Manufacturers' Association circulated the draft regulations to its members in February 1974, referred again to the proposed regulations in a Newsletter issued to its members in April 1974 and sent members a copy of the published regulations under cover of a Newsletter issued in November 1974.
When the new regulations were made, a Press notice giving details was issued by the Home Office in August 1974 and they received wide coverage in the Press throughout the country. A further Press notice was issued by the DPCP on 1st April 1975, the date when some of the provisions took effect for manufacturers and importers. That gave details of all the regulations, including those which had come into effect on 1st October 1974. Articles on the regulations were published in British Toys, the BMTA journal, in August 1974 and in Toy Trader in March 1975.
It is not possible for any Government Department, when making regulations


which affect traders in one way or another, to notify every trader individually about the requirements which they impose, and it is understood that it is common practice to rely, as the Home Office did, on the circulation of information by trade associations to their members and on publicity in the national and trade Press.

Mr. Hawkins: I apologise for interrupting again. I believe that the Minister has already told me in correspondence that no advertisements were put in the papers but that there were hand-outs which the newspapers made use of as they thought fit. Did they in fact give the details of the thickness of metal or anything else? Did the trade associations, when they circularised members early in 1974, give full details about the 0·5 mm? Does the Minister know?

Mr. Fraser: I do not know offhand. There were consultations about the regulations. They may have been altered during the course of the consultations. I do not know precisely the content of the draft regulations circulated to members, but wide publicity was given to them. It has not been the invariable practice of Government Departments to advertise new legislation. I know that it is done on some occasions. However, in such cases as this the Department relies on the trade association concerned notifying its members, as it did, including Mr. Marcus.
I turn now to complaints and accident statistics. In his letters to the Department, Mr. Marcus has contended that the provision in the regulations relating to sharp edges is unnecessary and unjustified by the small number of accidents which they cause.
In 1974, for example, 34 out of 121 complaints about potentially dangerous toys were about sharp edges and points. That is not a large number in relation to the millions of toys sold each year, but it is right to bear in mind that the majority have in the past complied with the British Standard Code and would not have had potentially dangerous features of this kind.
Statistics collected during 1973–74 as part of a wider study on the collection of home accident information showed that in the six participating hospitals—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this matter—

there were 197 accidents involving toys, of which six were recorded as being due to sharp edges. On a national basis—the hon. Gentleman made some fun of this aspect—that is equivalent to 150 accidents throughout England and Wales requiring hospital treatment. There is nothing illegitimate in projecting statistics on a national basis. If one did not accept the projection of certain statistics, one would have to collect statistics for every accident. That would be far too expensive and, I believe, unnecessary. What is more, reported accidents are only the tip of the iceberg since the majority of cuts are treated at home or by family doctors. It is significant that the NEISS data collection system and in-depth investigations in the USA have shown that sharp edges are one of the primary hazards presented by toys.
As in the case of all other regulations so far made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961, the Toys (Safety) Regulations apply to all products coming within their scope regardless of the date of manufacture. This is not unreasonable. If regulations are made to prohibit hazardous features of one kind or another in consumer goods, there can be little justification for excluding any existing stocks of potentially harmful products from their scope simply because they were manufactured or imported before the requirements were imposed.
The situation in regard to stocks already in the pipeline is, of course, considered in deciding on operative dates, but in the case of the Toys (Safety) Regulations, the Home Office took the view that there was no case for allowing a lengthy period of grace for the disposal of stocks of toys with sharp points or edges—stocks which, incidentally, would not have existed if the British Standard Code had been complied with. This applies equally to any toys which may already have been ordered from overseas suppliers before the regulations were made.
The placing of advance orders for toys is understood to be a practice followed by toy importers in general. It is, therefore, relevant to note that, from the time the Toys (Safety) Regulations came into operation, no representations have been received from any other importer of toys about non-complying toys of which they have been obliged to take delivery and


which they cannot now sell in this country. If Kitfix Hobby's Ltd. is now in this position, there is nothing that can be done to help it. It is hardly practicable to alter the operative date of regulations two and a half years after they have been in force.
Mr. Marcus considers it unfair and illogical that sharp edges on toys are prohibited while nothing has been done about sharp edges on soft drink cans with ring-pull ends. I remember cutting myself on a Coca Cola can on one occasion. If these cans were, in fact, found to be causing cut mouths and fingers, suitable action would, of course, be taken to deal with them.
Regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 are not enforced by my Department but by local trading standards authorities. There is no reason to suppose that they act in other than a reasonable manner in enforcing these regulations, and in many cases traders found to be selling non-complying products are warned in the first instance rather than prosecuted—especially in the period following the coming into force of new regulations. It is of interest to note that the first prosecution against Kitfix Hobby's Ltd was not brought until late in 1975, that is, two years after the regulations were first mooted by the Home Office.
Since then, this company has been prosecuted in various parts of the country—possibly in respect of the same range of imported toys. This is the effect of the "passing over" provisions introduced by the Consumer Protection Act 1971, which enable enforcement authorities, on finding that non-complying goods are being offered for sale, to prosecute the original suppliers for the offence if it is considered that they are mainly to blame. When a manufacturer or importer has once been prosecuted under this procedure for an offence committed by a retailer, he would be well advised to recall existing unsold stocks held elsewhere.
It is, of course, to be regretted if any toy trader finds it necessary, because of losses on non-complying toys, to contemplate closing his business, and it is naturally a matter for concern if this means a loss of jobs. No such case—

apart from Kitfix Hobby's Ltd—has been reported since the Toys (Safety) Regulations were made. It is understood that the toys which have led to prosecutions against Kitfix Hobby's Ltd have been imported toys.
The 1974 regulations were made by the Home Office—not by my Deportment. The requirements they imposed seem reasonable and necessary, and there would seem to have been full consultations with all the associations representing the toy trade, which apparently kept their members well informed of developments. These consultations led to later operative dates for some, but not all, of the proposed requirements. There was little justification for allowing the continued sale for a lengthy period of toys with sharp points and edges, bearing in mind the obvious hazard which these present and also the comparable provisions which had been in the British Standard for toys since 1961.
There is no evidence that the regulations have caused difficulties for toy importers or manufacturers, and it would appear that, generally speaking, the procedure adopted for promulgating information about the regulations was effective. The regulations will be kept under review, and, indeed, discussions are currently taking place with the British Toy Manufacturers' Association about the content of possible further regulations.
The prohibition of accessible sharp edges will be retained, but it is too early to say whether the present requirement is likely to be altered in any way. In the final event, it will have to be consistent with any relevant provision in the EEC directive, when adopted. No significant change may be necessary as the requirements of the CEN standard as at present drafted, on which the directive is to be based, are similar to those in the existing regulations.
I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman on this matter and I have listened to what he has said. I looked into the matter carefully before I came to the House, but I am afraid that, in balancing one's duty to the general pub-lie and children in particular, and given the knowledge and foresight which the hon. Gentleman's constituent might have had, I do not see any ground for changing the decisions that have been made on this matter.

Orders of the Day — WATER SUPPLY

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for inconveniencing him by asking him to be here and to the Officers of the House for delaying proceedings.
At the risk of boring the House I wish to question again the proposal to build a new dam in the Elan Valley in my constituency, namely, the Craig Goch. This is a joint venture to be undertaken by two water authorities, the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority. The Severn-Trent authority would benefit from the development by receiving about 90 per cent. of the supplies, if it goes ahead as envisaged at present, and the Welsh authority would receive 10 per cent. of the supplies from the reservoir.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for drought—perhaps we should call him the Minister for floods these days—has said that he cannot intervene in the argument over the size of the proposed dam because he has a quasi-judicial rôle to play. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes a similar view, and I have no doubt that they are right to do so. However, if Ministers are not to intervene, we are in some difficulty.
A consultative document was published last year stating that a national water authority will be created with powers to intervene over and above those of the regional water authorities. In the meantime, until legislation is produced—and I understand that legislation on this subject is pending—there will be a vacuum. These two water authorities can go ahead with their own plans, but if we think that a different plan ought to be pursued in the national interest, it seems that no one can intervene to overrule the water authorities.
It would be a tragedy if a start were made on the proposal to build the Craig Goch dam at the minimum suggested height, as proposed at present, when we ought to build a larger dam in the national interest. There are doubts about building the smaller dam. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a delay due to fears

expressed by the Severn-Trent authority. It would be a pity if the smaller dam were built.
Decisions of this nature should be taken out of the hands of bodies such as the water authorities. The project is designed so that the height could later be raised, but unfortunately the initial choice determines the kind of structure. We prefer a concrete buttress dam rather than a rock-filled darn, because a concrete dam would be more pleasing aesthetically and would be safer.
In view of our experiences of the last 12 months and particularly last summer's drought, does my hon. Friend think that a decision on the size of the dam should be taken by the two water authorities, which will be able to get the water they need from the smaller dam, when other parts of the country could ultimately benefit from the project? The present proposal for a smaller dam would provide water for Wales and for the Severn-Trent authority until the end of this century. But, in view of the wider considerations, if we are to move towards a national grid system, the Craig Goch project would be central to that system. In that sense we would move away from the idea of constructing a series of small dams all over the country and instead we could build a much larger dam which would disturb many fewer people.
When I first came to the House in 1970 I was involved in a controversy about a proposal to construct a small dam in my constituency. I argued against it at the time because I said it would disturb so many farm holdings and residents, but at the end of the day would not supply needs for far enough ahead. There was a larger project in another area which could have been extended to transfer water from one area to another. I see Craig Goch in the same way, so that transfers of water could take place into other areas of the country.
If my hon. Friend the Minister intends to speak about his quasi-judicial rôle and intends to opt out of intervention, may I ask him to advise me about to whom I may turn for intervention at this stage? The two authorities are rightly looking only to their own needs. One cannot expect them to look further, but we have to look far beyond this point and I beg my hon. Friend the Minister


to advise us to whom we can best turn for advice on intervention.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) for arranging this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming along to answer it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor has raised the subject of water supply and its problems as they affect his constituents. I should like to widen the debate by looking at one group with a considerable interest in water.
I do not suppose that the public ever paid as much regard to the supply of water as they did last year. In my constituency standpipes were put up in the streets—it was one of the few constituencies in the North-West where that happened. A great deal of attention was devoted to the problem at the time, and considerable groups have emerged since then. They deal with the problems facing industry and how it would continue with a shortage of water, with the problems facing the consumer, and with the problems facing anglers. I wish to speak briefly about the last group.
It is sometimes not realised that well over 2 million people regard themselves as anglers and that angling is probably the most popular outdoor sport in the country. Yet often the activities of water authorities run contrary to the interests of anglers, and frequently one gets the impression—as an angler, I do—that the interests of this group are forgotten when plans are being made.
One of the points which emerged last year when plans were being laid for a national water grid through which water could be transferred from one part of the country to another at a time of shortage was that this raised severe problems for anglers who were interested in migratory fish such as salmon, sea trout and so forth. No one fully understands how salmon return to the rivers of their birth, but many anglers are afraid that if a national water grid is introduced, it might disturb the natural pattern, and the opportunity to fish for migratory fish would be reduced accordingly.
I recall reading an article in The Sunday Times last year indicating the difficulties

that would have to be faced. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this point on board and will ensure that consultations take place with angling interests before any such plans are put into effect.
In a similar vein, there was an announcement last week that, despite the amount of rain we are having at present, there could be a severe water shortage in the North-West within about 20 years. It was announced on television that four possible schemes for dealing with that water shortage were being considered. Two of them were in the Lake District, one at Haweswater. There was a third scheme for a Morecambe Bay barrage and a fourth scheme at Hellifield on the Ribble.
The interesting point about the television programme was that environmentalists were present to put forward their point of view but no account was taken of angling interests. Yet if one considers the benefits against the costs, there can be little doubt that the most effective scheme would be for the Morecambe Bay barrage to be developed. This would not only provide a large fresh water lake but, in addition, would provide a highway cutting the corner off on the long road to Barrow.
In the foreseeable future Barrow could become an important development area if gas is found in the Irish Sea. At the moment the road to Barrow is long and tedious. The Morecambe Bay barrage would resolve the problem of water supplies and would at no cost to the environment or to anglers—rather an improvement to the environment and further facilities for all kinds of leisure pursuits on water—enable the North-West not only to meet the demand for water but also most probably supply other areas.
However, if the scheme at Haweswater or the other scheme in the Lake District were introduced, it would have serious environmental effects. Similarly, the scheme at Hellifield on the Ribble would also have serious environmental effects. I believe that that scheme could effectively destroy the possibility of migratory fish, such as salmon and sea trout, on the Ribble, because the areas where the salmon spawn would probably be destroyed. That would be a serious loss not simply to present anglers but to future generations who might wish to be involved in this sport.
A further problem with regard to the angling fraternity concerns pollution. This is closely related to the problem of water supply itself. Anyone who has walked along a river which is normally alive with fish and who has seen the pollution caused by a chemical plant, or some other form of pollution, will know what a horrifying sight it is to see literally hundreds of fish dying or dead on the surface of the river. Those fish cannot be replaced and their deaths will result in the non-creation of thousands of other fish.
The measures that the Government have at their disposal to deal with pollution are insufficient. My suggestion for dealing with industrial pollution would be initially to require every new factory sited on a river to have its effluent point above the point at which it takes water out of the river. By doing so the firm would have an interest in making sure that it was not taking in heavily polluted water for its own purposes. That is the kind of control that I believe to be necessary if we are to make any progress whatever with this serious problem of pollution in our water supplies.
A practice that is causing a great deal of distress to fishermen, particularly those involved in seeking migratory fish is the excessive netting of those fish in estuaries. As well as being a serious environmental threat and detrimental to the interests of the angler, people involved in netting are making a killing, literally, at the expense of many others. This practice should be much more effectively controlled.
Since the water reorganisation, the North-West Water Authority now covers an area from Calisle almost to the Midlands. It did an excellent job during the drought which could not have been done under the old structure, but all is not perfect. Anglers have a strong criticism of the authority.
Many anglers have relatively modest means and do not wish to travel from Rossendale, my constituency, or Burnley, where I live, to the area around Carlisle to fish, yet they pay a licence charge to cover the whole area. The authority refuses to budge, but there is no reason why part-area licences, at a reduced cost, should not be introduced. There are also proposals, which should be carefully examined, for the charges to be increased.
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make some points which are important to anglers. This subject is not often raised in the House.

9.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) on seizing the opportunity earlier this evening of requesting an additional Adjournment debate. It does not make him any more popular with Ministers, but his constituents will see it as evidence that they have an alert and concerned Member. The short notice does make things difficult. My hon. Friend is right: I do intend to talk about the quasi-judicial rôle of the Secretary of State.
We operate at the moment under the Water Act 1973, brought in by Conservative Members, who could be on the empty Benches opposite. The people responsible for the water supply are the water authorities, on which the local authorities are in a majority. Hon. Members who write to me and the Minister of State a good deal could get in touch with the chairmen of those authorities and the public could contact them through their local councils.
On the subject of Craig Goch, it is virtually certain that there will be a public inquiry if an order is made for any scheme of the kind described by my hon. Friend. After such an inquiry, the inspector's report is referred to the Secretary of State for decision. That is what prevents me from stating any views tonight. I am greatly tempted to do so by some of the things that my hon. Friend said, but I may not. When that inquiry is held, there should be a consideration of the full range of options, not just those brought up by the water authorities.
My hon. Friend was quite right to say that the Severn-Trent authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority have considered jointly the possible scheme for a reservoir at Craig Goch. They believe that a 373-metre level dam would satisfy their needs at Severn-Trent, Wales and Wessex until the next century. Incidentally, that is not the depth of the dam but its height above sea level when the reservoir is completed. They have looked at the


possibility of going beyond that level to 385 metres or 400 metres.
Some estimate of the costs of the various schemes has been made. A 373-metre dam would cost £39 million, a 385-metre dam would cost £70 million, and a 400-metre dam would cost £100 million. There have been some doubts in the National Water Council—I am not expressing an opinion of the Department on this—about the technical feasibility of 400-metre dam, not from the point of view of construction, but from the effect it may have on the upper Severn.
My hon. Friend asked me to whom he should turn for information. He should go, first, in this case to the Welsh authority and, secondly, the National Water Council. The council does not have the powers we would expect it to have under the proposed legislation, but it would certainly help with information. During the next few days, the Welsh and the Severn-Trent authorities will probably be discussing with the National Water Council and with the Department the national implications of the scheme. The views of other regional water authorities will be taken into account.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions about this subject. I am sure that regional water authorities will keep the public informed, and the public in Wales and England will have an opportunity to participate in a public inquiry.
There is no vacuum at present. We have had consultations, but plans of the water authorities are going ahead where possible. We hope to produce a White Paper on possible future legislation in the late spring and the House will have an opportunity to discuss the question before then. The difference between a national water authority and the National Water Council would be on the matter of strategic planning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) also seized the opportunity with great effect, and I know that he will not expect me to answer all his points. The first Adjournment debate which I ever initiated as a Back-Bencher was about the pollution of rivers in South-East Lancashire. In the nine years since then there has been a considerable

improvement in those rivers. I can safely say that, despite restrictions on public expenditure, money spent to prevent pollution has not declined recently.
I visited my hon. Friend's constituency last summer and I saw the standpipes. His area has never been under water since. He realised that the drought and the fact that we were saved from its worst effects was no joking matter, as some people thought.
He mentioned anglers. Sport is another sphere of influence of my Department. I agree that angling is an enormously important sport and it has the largest following of any sport in the country.
I noted what my hon. Friend said about the need for proper facilities for licensing and for watching conservation, another aspect of my Department's work. There ought to be consultation between anglers and the regional water authorities. We try where possible to see that anglers are represented on a water authority.
As a North-West Member, I echo all that my hon. Friend said about the importance of the North West Water Authority. As a native of Manchester, I was always brought up to believe that while the pyramids might be among the seven wonders of the world, the Manchester Corporation waterworks were also among the seven wonders. I am sure that the North-West has been very appreciative of the foresight of the city fathers of Manchester and Liverpool during recent years.
There will be plenty of opportunity for debating water supply and other relevant matters, such as the disposal of dirty water. I note what my hon. Friends have said, and I shall let them have a reply in due course.

Orders of the Day — TEACHER EXCHANGES (UNITED STATES)

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise the tax and currency problems which face British teachers who have taken part in teacher exchanges in the United States. I assure my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there are problems for those


who have been caught up in that situation over the past year. I know that to raise such a complex problem in an Adjournment debate is very bold, but I also know that my hon. Friend is aware of the problems, because I have corresponded with him on behalf of two of my constituents, and I know that he has sympathy about their problems.
My plea to my hon. Friend is that the Treasury should think again about the problems of Dr. Robert Giddings, of Somerset House, Swineford, and Mr. F. R. Powell, of 20, Church Road, Bitton. They are two of the unfortunate people who happened to be on teacher exchanges in the United States during the past year.
All British exchange teachers in the United States last year were exposed to the severities of the economic situation there during 1975–76. They also had to face the fall in the value of the pound. This is acknowledged by all those who have commented on the situation. Some of those who were on teacher exchanges last year have been featured in articles in The Sunday Times, The Times, and The Times Educational Supplement, and have been on television and radio in Great Britain and the United States.
Evidence has also been passed to me underlining much of the hardship experienced by teachers and their families in the United States during that time. All the time this was happening they were supposed to be ambassadors for the United Kingdom. There is massive evidence that their hardship made the Americans realise that we were very poor cousins indeed. That is not a good thing for us to be advertising in the United States. We are having enough trouble advertising our best product, Concorde, there. Certainly to advertise financially poor teachers is something we could do without, and it should be avoided at all costs.
United States teachers who come to this country receive tax concessions for doing so. While they are on exchange programmes in Europe they can also claim educational expenses. Yet the United Kingdom Government, through the Inland Revenue, now seek to tax the salaries of our teachers for the money they earned while they were in the United States.
The crux of the problem seems to me to be the interpretation of Schedule 2 of the Finance Act 1974. The phrase contained in that provision relates to duties
"performed wholly outside the United Kingdom".
The problem has arisen over interpretation of that phrase by the Inland Revenue.
My constituent, Dr. Giddings, taught in the United States for a year or more and his duties were performed wholly outside the United Kingdom. The same applies to Mr. Powell, even though they were both being paid by their employer, the Avon County Council. That is where the anomaly arises.
I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether business executives and others in this country pay British taxes when they spend a year or more outside the United Kingdom. The Inland Revenue's case is that earnings received by a person for a period of absence from an office of employment, the duties of which are ordinarily performed wholly or partly in this country, are treated as earnings for duties performed in the United Kingdom. In other words, a teacher who is given leave of absence to go to the United States under an exchange programme and who continues to be paid by a local authority in this country—in this case by the Avon County Council—remains liable to tax in full on his United Kingdom earnings.
This means that British teachers, who are paid substantially less than their American counterparts, go on exchange to the United States which has a very high cost of living and where they have to pay for their own health insurance, commodity tax on their food, as well as having to meet British income tax for social and welfare benefits which they cannot enjoy while they are in the United States. This is nothing short of madness. Furthermore, American teachers pay much lower rates of tax than do British teachers.
Last year a total of 90 teachers went from the United Kingdom to the United States. At a time when the pound was constantly falling in value, those teachers suffered severe hardship. Therefore, to screw them at this stage for income tax when they return to these shores seems


to be beyond belief, and is certainly a great shame.
I wish to ask the Minister one other question. Do military personnel, civil servants and business personnel get clobbered in the same way for British income tax if they are out of the country for a year or more? I do not see why this is happening at the present time. The desperate position of teachers last year was recognised by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits, because it increased to £1,616 the amount of grant and raised the amounts for dependants to £323 and £405 respectively. It recognises the fact that teachers abroad have suffered great hardship.
Dr. Giddings is a handicapped person in a wheelchair. He had to take his wheelchair to the United States, and the Department of Health and Social Security insisted that he should be liable for the upkeep and repair of that wheelchair while abroad. It cost him some 80 dollars in repairs and the hire of a loan chair during the time that his own chair was out of service.
During the time that he was away he did not enjoy the benefits of the British National Health Service. His family were not covered by the scheme that operates under the Department of Health in Washington. I am told that that covers exchange teachers only. My constituent had to pay for medical bills incurred by the family for drugs and other matters, while American teachers in the same situation in this country get free National Health Service treatment. It seems that they are getting all the benefits and we are paying out all the money.
The Central Bureau for Educational Visits in London was approached on this matter, and there is a definite precedent, so it tells me, in previous cases were British exchange teachers have not paid tax. There is no way that I can check that that has been the case, but that is what I am told. If there is a precedent, I ask the Minister to look into it. If there is a precedent, surely it should be honoured at this time.
The West German exchange scheme with America avoids these problems because jobs and salaries are exchanged. My research has shown that the British scheme is the only one where the foreign

exchange teacher is paid salary from the home country and pays home taxation in the United States. The United States teacher gets a United States salary and pays United States taxes while in this country.
If we are to overcome this anomaly, teachers must be given freedom from United Kingdom income tax while they are abroad. Before my constituents left this country the Inland Revenue did not seem to be very clear about the exact position. The Inland Revenue was approached by Dr. Giddings's accountants in this regard. I only wish that they had raised the matter with me so that I could have been in a position to raise the matter before rather than after the event.
I ask my hon. Friend to look into these matters once again and to regard them in a compassionate light. On the evidence that has been presented to me, it seems to be a grossly unfair situation that should be quickly remedied. I hope that it will be remedied, but perhaps it may be considered retrospectively for my two constituents and others who are similarly affected. After all, we are talking about a small number of families—namely, 90. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this matter. It occurs to me that it should be sorted out so that those who go to teach in America as our ambassadors should not be financially embarrassed.

9.33 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The House will have expected my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) to have made his case with his customary courtesy, lucidity and, if I may say so, accuracy. From the knowledge that I have it is clear that he has gone into this matter in great detail and has applied himself to assist his constituents to the best of his ability. The House always appreciates and recognises the value of a Member who acts in that way.
The problems of the teacher exchanges that took place last year were clearly dealt with by my hon. Friend. After hearing what he has said, there can be no doubt that considerable hardship was involved in the cases of his two constituents—namely, Mr. Powell and Dr. Giddings. My hon. Friend has referred to two letters, the first being written by


Dr. Giddings on 2nd December and the second by Mr. Powell, and my hon. Friend wrote to me on 20th December.
There are really three aspects to this matter. One—the question of grants and payments—does not concern me directly. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The two aspects that concern me and that cover the main points raised by my right hon. Friend are those of tax and currency problems.
I shall deal first with the currency problems of these two constituents of my hon. Friend. We know that there was an exceptional decline in the value of the pound sterling in comparison with the dollar during the whole of the period of last year. Those who had made their arrangements on the exchange rate prevailing at the beginning of their visit, which in the case of these two constituents of my hon. Friend was 14th August 1975, would obviously have found that, however careful their budgeting, they would not have been able to make reasonable provision to cope with the decline in the value of the money available to them.
We cannot contemplate poverty in people sent abroad as ambassadors for this country with anything but the greatest anxiety about their difficulties. We accept that, due to a number of arrangements that United States teachers have been able to make, they have some advantages, quite apart from the fact that they are generally more highly paid.
I turn to the tax problem. Clearly there is room for some changes here. I shall come in due course to the type of changes proposed. My hon. Friend was right to point out that the problems of his constituents really arise from Schedule 2 to the Finance Act 1974, which deals with the position of those who leave this country, as his constituents left this country, to work abroad, but of course they were still being paid by the Avon County Council.
My hon. Friend asked whether business executives and civil servants, if they were similarly affected, would have to pay United Kingdom tax. The answer, broadly, is "Yes". Where a business man has an employment the duties of which are not wholly performed abroad, he will remain liable to United Kingdom

tax as well. A civil servant and, of course, anybody else in the service of the Government will be taxed according to United Kingdom tax laws if abroad for not more than a year.
So these teachers are in a difficult position. My hon. Friend tells me that the grant has now been increased, so those who go abroad in future on exchange visits of this type will be protected. My hon. Friend pointed out that United States teachers enjoy the benefits of free National Health Service treatment here and that West German teachers have a number of advantages.
My hon. Friend also said that his constituents had problems with the local tax office where the position was not made quite clear to them. I regret that and apologise for it. I shall be happy to go further into that aspect of the matter.
We have looked at what can be done to put the matter right for the future. It is of little advantage to those who blazed the way, to those who have suffered and find that they are unable to receive recompense, to tell them that the problems will be put right for others. However, we are unfortunately tied by statute and the provisions of the Finance Act 1974. Without commitment, we are hoping that we shall be able to look at the problem along the lines of the consultative document published on 15th December.
The document deals precisely with the matter that my hon. Friend's constituents correctly brought to light. It deals with the position of people who work abroad. The category of person that we had in mind was that involved in exporting. We were thinking of the need to encourage exporting. But it will apply to all those taxpayers who go abroad in the way described by my hon. Friend.
Without going into the details of the consultative document I shall briefly explain the provision from which my hon. Friend's constituents—or others who go abroad in future—will be able to benefit. The proposals in the consultative document have not yet been accepted, but on that understanding I shall tell the House how such people may be assisted.
The provisions would apply to those going abroad for a continuous period of 30 days or more who would receive a 25 per cent. deduction from their overseas earnings which would then


be assessed for tax in the usual way. For those abroad for a period of more than 365 days the deduction would be 100 per cent. That means that there would be no United Kingdom tax payable on the overseas earnings of those people. That provision would meet my hon. Friend's objection in full. That is a remedy for the future. The problems of the past were caused by the Finance Act.
I shall be happy to look at the particular problem raised by my hon. Friend of why his constituents were not given the information that might have been made available to them. That information might have enabled them to conduct their affairs in a different manner. Without involving any extra money, the information might have enabled them to plan at an earlier stage for their liabilities when they saw the exchange rate decline, and might have enabled them to assess the seriousness of their financial position. I am pleased to say that we have made arrangements for the arrears of tax to be deducted over a long period of time and that that has been met with a satisfactory response.

Mr. John Cope: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the provisions of his Act created the problems and that they were considerably criticised at the time? The Minister referred to the consultative document. I hope that he was not implying that the proposals will be adopted in anything like the form of the proposals contained in the document. They might help the cases raised by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), but they would create difficulties for others, such as exporters.

Mr. Sheldon: The document is clearly consultative. Earlier I made it clear that it was only a basis for discussion. Representations have been made to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue which are being considered. A decision will be made in due course and will be announced during the course of the Budget Statement. Clearly, if the proposals were enacted in the form set out in the consultative document, that would meet the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
With that understanding, I should be happy to look at the further point concerning

the ability of tax offices to furnish the information that does not seem to have been made fully available in this case, and which might have been of some assistance to the two constituents concerned. I hope that we shall be able to find out something in that respect.
With that, perhaps we can take note that the grievance that my hon. Friend's constituents had was one that ought to have been brought to the attention of the House. But, such as it was, it will, if the consultative document is carried into effect, be remedied by future changes.

Orders of the Day — TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES (SCOTLAND)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a tangential subject to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), perhaps I may tell him that he is not the only person to have run into this problem. When I was a delegate to a conference at Lomé, I had similar worries expressed by British teachers working for the British Council at schools in West Africa, so I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that this is a widespread problem and it is not only my hon. Friend who is concerned about it.
I object to people cheating on Adjournment debates, but I have tried, briefly, to find my hon. Friend at the Scottish Office who is responsible for the teacher training colleges in Scotland. However, I wish to raise with the Treasury the tangential problem which has some relevance to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has raised.
As the Financial Secretary knows, there is the vexed problem of the closing down and merger of teacher training colleges.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to Mr. Speaker's office and to the Scottish Office?

Mr. Dalyell: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not been able to find a Scottish Office Minister to reply to this debate. But I think that it is fair to put this to the Treasury. I do not expect an answer this evening, because the Financial Secretary is a careful man and does not give


off-the-cuff answers, and it would be improper if he were to do so. However, may I ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, I think that he well knows the rules of the House. Whereas the Chair cannot in fact prevent him from raising matters without notice, the Chair strongly deprecates the practice.

Mr. Dalyell: I think it reasonable, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that I do not expect a detailed, off-the-cuff answer from the Treasury tonight, and legitimate to raise in the House of Commons—as I did last Tuesday, in an Adjournment debate on the question of the merger and closing down of teacher training colleges in Scotland—the question whether the Treasury has insisted on having from the Scottish Office any kind of proper costing of the proposals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to the Treasury? He has not been able to find a Minister from the Scottish Office, but has he approached the Treasury and given notice to the Treasury for the debate?

Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in understanding that the purpose of giving notice is to ensure that a Treasury Minister or the appropriate departmental Minister is present in order to reply to the debate? We have a Treasury Minister present. Therefore, is not the purpose of giving notice to the Treasury fulfilled in this case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have thought that in the circumstances the Minister concerned should have some notice of the subject matter of the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: If one were demanding a reply off the cuff from a Minister, it would certainly be courteous and good manners to give a good notice. On the other hand, as you will recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the period of time that we have in the House is perhaps gratuitous for such subjects, and we do not always have the advantage of time in Adjournment debates. If I put the matter in the form of registering an argument with Treasury Ministers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provided that I am not unreasonable and ill-mannered enough to press for a detailed reply tonight, which would be

totally unreasonable, surely I am entitled to express the problem.
The problem is this. The Secretary of State for Scotland has come forward—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should inform the hon. Gentleman of the exact words on page 285 of "Erskine May" because they set out the situation clearly. They say:
The Chair has deprecated the introduction of such subjects "—
that is, additional Adjournment debates—
in cases where clue notice has not been given to the Minister concerned".
I really feel that I must strongly deprecate the raising of the matter, whether tangential or not, with the Financial Secretary, because he has not had due notice of the subject upon which the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak.

Mr. Dalyell: Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, strongly deprecate or order me not to do it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can answer that at once. The Chair has no power to prevent the hon. Gentleman but the Chair does have the power to deprecate strongly the action that the hon. Member takes.

Mr. Dalyell: In normal circumstances I would thereupon sit down, but the situation in Scotland is such, the justice of the cause is such, and the amount of feeling there is such, that I have received 540 handwritten letters, not to mention printed circular letters, about the merger and closure of these training colleges, and for the first time I do not take a hint from the Chair.
The argument that the proposals have been based upon is that the merger of Craiglockhart College and Dunfermline Women's College of Physical Education, the closure of Craigie College in Ayr and the closure of Callendar Park College at Falkirk will produce a saving.
All this is being done on the basis of an apparent cost saving. The whole argument has been the economic one that we must do this in order to achieve savings in public expenditure. Time and again over the last four weeks hon. Members have repeatedly challenged the Scottish Office to produce evidence of the savings and the Scottish Office has failed to do so.
During the Adjournment debate that Mr. Speaker kindly allowed me last Tuesday, I spoke for precisely two minutes, having given five days' notice to the Secretary of State that I would repeat the questions put during the Scottish Grand Committee about the savings involved in the closure and merger of these colleges. After well over a month of argument, nothing has been forthcoming. There is no evidence that if Craigie College—which is two years old and was purpose built for the physical education of women teachers—were closed and used for other specified purposes, there would be a saving. Furthermore, it is extremely doubtful that there would be any savings from closing Callendar Park College and using its extensive facilities for other purposes.
As for Craiglockhart College, upon which a great deal of money of the Sacred Heart organisation has been lovingly spent during the past 60 years in bulding up a tradition of Roman Catholic primary and secondary teacher training, there is no evidence that any saving would result from closing it and merging it with a separate Roman Catholic training college—Moray House or Dundee College of Education. Indeed, it is doubtful that there would be any saving from the closure of a college of education that is celebrated for its in-service capacity and work in the South-West of Scotland—and it is the only one in the area.
Surely at some stage the Treasury becomes involved in all policy decisions of the Scottish Office. If it can be proved beyond peradventure that, in present circumstances, there is a substantial saving, I am one of those hon. Members who understands these things well. I have supported the Government's cuts and unpopular decisions on the rate support grant and throughout the economic arguments I have been a strong supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government.
However, hon. Members who share my attitude find it intolerable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should put forward such proposals in a so-called consultation document with the imprint of the Government upon it. Surely a consultation document is not published unless there is a fairly clear intention of

carrying out the proposals. It would be frivolous to do so, and Scottish Office Ministers would not be that frivolous.
The Financial Secretary can answer my questions in writing. Can he tell me what proper cost estimates have been made on the decision to merge and close teacher training colleges in Scotland? At a time when the Secretary of State of Education and Science has decided to close and merge colleges in 1981, with full consultation with all involved, including local authorities and the Roman Catholic hierachy, what argument is there for the Scottish Office to say that it will carry out the irreversible act of merging and closing colleges in 1977 and 1978? It is easy to give training colleges the chop, but much more difficult to build up a tradition.
Our argument, which we have stated time and again, is that these colleges are essential for Scottish education. If there must be pruning, it could easily be done by making savings at the Jordanhill College of Education in Glasgow, which some of us think is far too big, or at the Moray House College of Education in Edinburgh, which some people think is rather big. There are also prunings which could be made to take care of the problems of the statistics and the falling birth rate.
I speak not only for the majority of Scottish Members but with the unanimous approval of the Executive and the Conference of the Labour Party in Scotland and many other organisations, who, after a month, have still had from the Scottish Office no idea or evidence on the basis of which these matters were discussed.
This is a heaven-sent opportunity to ask whether the Treasury were consulted. The Treasury's record is one of complete seriousness, earnestness, doing its homework and going into matters thoroughly. I doubt whether the Treasury civil servants, whom I regard as highly responsible people and not ogres—Ah! My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just come into the Chamber. I welcome him and tell him that I am in the middle of putting to the Financial Secretary the same sort of questions that I put to my hon. Friend in an Adjournment debate on Tuesday last week concerning the costings of the closure and merger of training colleges. At some time I ask that


there be a thorough investigation by the Treasury of the decisions by the Scottish Office as to whether it is sensible, for example, to close down the Dunfermline College of Education with all the—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Mr. Dalyell: I ask the Treasury to ask the Scottish Office in some detail whether it is sensible, for example, to close down the Dunfermline College of Education at Cramond when it would mean the extra expense of moving embedded equipment from Cramond to Dundee? I must go into some detail. Is it sensible to remove the trampoline equipment specially designed for Cramond to Dundee where the height of the buildings is not sufficient for the trampoline activity? Is it sensible to move from Cramond to Dundee 92 per cent. of the students, who are not resident in Tayside, and for whom extra residences will have to be found? Is it sensible not to use the expensive swimming pool and athletic facilities at Cramond, which are the very basis of Scotland's international position in women's sport, and to move them to Dundee where similar playing fields and facilities do not exist? Will the Treasury look at these matters and ask Scottish Office civil servants about the advice that they have given to Ministers in that regard?
I ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—for many years I have worked closely with him in one form of activity or another and I know him to be a man of total seriousness and integrity—and his able Treasury officials to demand of the Scottish Office how, after 60 years, the Craiglockhart College, lovingly financed by the Sacred Heart organisation and having built up a tradition of Roman Catholic primary and latterly secondary teacher training, can be moved to Moray House or to Dundee retaining a similar entity when those very colleges say that to retain a similar entity would be a highly expensive operation? Furthermore, what compensation will be paid to the Roman Catholic Church if Craiglockhart is closed down?
Why is it that, before issuing what may be called a consultative document—but a document with the imprint of Government, which we must assume is serious—neither the governing body of Craiglockhart nor the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, was consulted? How can a Secretary of State do such things?
This is a very good question for the Treasury—the senior Department of Government—to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends. After all, the Treasury has some responsibility for the Scottish Office. I may say that Scots are not slow, when anything goes wrong, to blame my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury.
I suggest furthermore that, if, under the 1918 Act, there is to be an obligation to the Roman Catholic authorities, my right hon. Friend might ask why this teacher training college—the only facility of its kind in the East of Scotland—is threatened with closure and what financial savings would be made, if there is to be a Roman Catholic teacher training facility in the East of Scotland, if it were to be closed?
I now turn my attention to the question of Callender Park where some 35 per cent. of the students are my constituents. What financial or other savings will be made by closing a training college in the strongest growth area in Scotland knowing, as we do, that there are considerable advantages in having in-service training of teachers in schools near a training college.
Indeed, if the numbers are to be reduced substantially in places like Callendar Park, can we have from the Treasury, as the senior economics Department, some kind of table balancing the cost savings that might otherwise have to be made in unemployment benefit and all sorts of other benefits with those of continuing the college? I also wish to know the estimate of the Treasury of the costs or otherwise of turning Callendar Park into some kind of college of educational administrators, as the inspectorate in Scotland seems to want. In the view of the Treasury, is that a sensible proposition?
I record that, having been often to Callendar Park, I support the views, expressed publicly by demonstrating in his


march with the protesters, of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), that Callendar Park should not be closed. I state here in the House of Commons absolutely and unequivocally that I think that he has performed a brave action, an action of conscience, an action of determination, an action justified in terms of the future of education in Scotland, by making it clear that he stands with Callendar Park on the issue of this consultative document, and that he is prepared to challenge his boss, the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter. In my view, he is wholly right and should be supported, and I take the opportunity of supporting him tonight. I hope that when the Treasury looks at this matter it will reach the same view.
Finally, I speak with much more diffidence. At the Scottish Labour Party Conference, I made it my business to talk to those who represented the area of Ayrshire served by Craigie College of Education. They pointed out that in that area of South-West Scotland, not only does Craigie train teachers but it also serves all sorts of other educational purposes, and that it would be an act of considerable lack of foresight to close it. I ask a direct question, although I do not expect my hon. Friend to reply offhand tonight. That would be unreasonable, and in 15 years of working with him I hope that I have never asked him ministerially or otherwise, any unreasonable question. I would like the Treasury's view on the cost savings of closing Craigie as of the other colleges I have mentioned. I should like a Treasury assessment of the total overall savings in the closure of Craigie.

Mr. David Mitchell: The point I should like the hon. Gentleman to bring out, which is not personal as between him and the Financial Secretary, is one in which the House has an interest. It concerns the extent to which what is being proposed by the Government will damage religious education in that part of Scotland. All of us have an interest, in a Christian country, in seeing the continuance of the right of choice for those who wish to have religious education for their children, and I am disturbed that that choice might be restricted in the future.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a delicate issue. It is no secret that I shared a platform with the Cardinal-Archbishop of Edinburgh and St. Andrews Cardinal Gray, Archbishop Winning, Monsignor Grady, the Vicar-General, and others who are concerned, and continue to be deeply concerned, about the future of Craiglockhart. They point out that if the Roman Catholic teacher training colleges in the East of Scotland close, this will have considerable effect on Roman Catholic education, and after all, there are certain guarantees under the 1918 Act.

Mr. James Dempsey: May I draw the House's attention the fact that the Bachelor of Education course is being withdrawn from Notre Dame College of Education, which will make that college less attractive and is the beginning of the erosion of the college as one which teaches denominational students throughout the West of Scotland? There is now great fear that something similar to the college closures will ultimately follow there unless we act now and stop the rot.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I know he feels that the Secretary of State for Scotland ought long ago to have met the Cardinal-Archbishop of Edinburgh and St. Andrews and others in the Roman Catholic hierarchy and discussed these things in the proper way.
I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) that this is not a broad attack by me on the Labour Government. The truth is that in England my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mrs. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)—the Secretary of State and Minister of State—had extensive discussions with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It may be that there has to be some contraction in teacher training education, given the fall in the birth rate, but in England these things were done with a considerable amount of pre-discussion. It was done in the proper way, with discussions first to reach some kind of agreement, and an infinite amount of trouble was taken. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State naturally went to enormous trouble to get some kind of agreement and to have full and frank discussions, before putting any plan to paper with the imprint of Government. I say bluntly that I would have hoped that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have behaved in the same way. He should long ago have had discussions about the very real problems that he may face in relation to Catholic education, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke has said.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I intervene briefly to say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who is not as familiar with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that I have made plain in the House on more than one occasion that there is no threat at all to Roman Catholic education in Scotland. That is guaranteed in the Act of 1918 and it is under no threat from this Government, just as it was under no threat from previous Governments.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to meet the hierarchy, as I have met the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. This is a consultative document. No final decision has been made on any college or any course, nor will decisions be made until all the considerations have been taken into account and the Secretary of State has gone through all the submissions. Everything will be taken into consideration.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I did not intend to inject any note of party dissent into the discussion. I thought that what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said was of significance beyond the borders of Scotland. I am grateful to the Minister for having clarified the situation but I join the hon. Member for West Lothian in his sense of unease at the situation which he is unveiling.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a matter of some significance. I would like to put on record, in case there is any misunderstanding, that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) has done his very best in difficult circumstances and that his heart is in the right place. We all know the position in which junior

Ministers find themselves. That is why throughout my speech there has not been a note of criticism of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park. His rôle in the matter has been wholly honourable, as one would expect.
To the Financial Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, I say that I am asking that the Treasury, the most powerful Ministry in Whitehall, should turn its most critical faculties and its most determined investigatory powers, using some of its most able and determined and formidable civil servants, to investigate the way in which the Scottish Office has come forward with the proposals. I accept that the proposals are in a consultative document, but it is a document that has the imprint of Government about it. It would be a frivolous waste of taxpayers' money if a document with the imprint of Government gave no firm outline of the Government's intentions. One must therefore assume that the consultative document represents some kind of intent by the Government. Therefore I ask that some of the most formidable civil servants who work for the Financial Secretary should be asked to turn their attention to how it happened that the Scottish Office could put forward a document with this kind of intent.
After weeks of questioning from my hon. Friends the Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), Coatbridge and Airdrie and many others, and from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who represents the Cramond College of Education, there has still been no proper argument or explanation about the savings which will be made if the proposals are put into effect. I protest as strongly as I can about proposals that lack evidence.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House now have the gravest suspicions that there is the threat of closure, a threat to dismantle valuable institutes of Scottish education, a threat that is based on an unreal argument of economic savings. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has taken a leading part in the campaign. He made a speech of eloquence and power, a very influential and good speech, on this subject at the Scottish Labour Party Conference at Perth. That conference unanimously—executive and all—came out against any closures in circumstances that were totally


different from the circumstances applying in England.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has been talking in terms of 1981. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been talking in terms of 1977. Before my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replies, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, who played such a leading part at the Scottish conference, would like to say a word or two on this matter.
For the first time I have not accepted a deprecation from an occupant of the Chair and instead I have insisted upon my rights. I did so only because this is a matter upon which I feel passionately, a matter which will affect the young people of Scotland for many generations to come.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is interesting to see my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury preparing to reply on behalf of the Government tonight. There is no educational justification for the proposals in the document, and if there is any reason for the proposals it is a financial, or rather a pseudo-financial, reason. I can see no savings in public expenditure arising from the document.
I have tabled Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking how much it is expected will be saved in public expenditure as a result of the proposals in the document. Unfortunately, the replies have been non-committal, or simply not forthcoming.
This is not an educational document. It contains no educational philosophy or reasoning. The only and phoney reason behind the document is that the Treasury is looking over the shoulder of the Scottish Office and stupidly telling it to cut public expenditure in the vain hope of diverting resources into industry.
That will not happen for several reasons. It will not happen in financial terms because as yet we do not have control over where the resources go, whether it is into manufacturing industry or elsewhere. We do not have a Socialist economy and the Treasury obviously has no intention of trying to create a Socialist economy.
This transfer of resources will not take place in human terms either. My own trade union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, conducted a survey among students who left the colleges of education last summer and less than 1 per cent. of that sample actually managed to find jobs in manufacturing industry. It is a myth to suggest that those who do not find jobs in education will find jobs in manufacturing industry.
This transfer of resources theory, which the Treasury is trying to persuade the Scottish Office and all the other Government Departments to adopt, is not borne out in fact. It is living in cloud cuckoo land. The transfer is not taking place in financial or human terms. That is why I say that it is about time that the Treasury started listening not just to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and myself, but to the voice of the whole Labour movement as expressed at the Scottish conference of the Labour Party at Perth on Saturday.
As a result of the recommendation of the executive and the emergency resolution moved by myself the whole conference said "Let us reject this document; let us think again and oppose the college closures and let us start thinking constructively about better ways to improve Scottish education instead of demolishing it."

10.23 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I would simply like to ask a question of the Treasury Minister. How does the Treasury quantify the social and economic value of these colleges to the areas in which they are situated? I am thinking most particularly of Craigie College which is of economic value, socially and educationally, to the South-West of Scotland. How does the Treasury quantify these matters before it takes such savage decisions about cuts?

10.24 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to ask one question of the Treasury Minister. Before doing so I should say how much the speeches of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) have been appreciated, especially the speech by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire at the


Labour Party Conference: it carried great weight.
I would ask the Minister whether it is possible to frame a sound policy without having a feasibility study and without having costings? How can the people of Scotland be convinced that reforms of this nature are necessary without costings of any kind having been prepared? If the Secretary of State wishes to convince the Scots that some harsh reforms are necessary, the costings must be made and must be made public. It is no us making decisions before making costings, because if the decisions are wrong, they cannot be put right later. The costings and the feasibility study must be done first.
What is the Government's objection to having costings and a feasibility study? Never before has it been the case that Ministers have flatly rejected feasibility studies before making decisions. Why should they refuse in this case? In the case of Dunfermline College it is estimated that transfer to Dundee College, if Dundee College is to have the same facilities, would cost public expenditure well in excess of £1 million.
To transform the present Dunfermline College to other purposes would need substantial public expenditure. Is there not an overwhelming case for a feasibility study and costings? Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has flatly refused to visit any of the colleges threatened with closure or to allow any other Scottish Office Minister to do so? His refusal to do costings or a feasibility study is considered a gross injustice to the people of Scotland. They want to know the facts, which they feel they are being denied.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I opposed these suggested closures in the Scottish Grand Committee and I shall continue to do so. Wild horses will never drag me into the Lobby to support them. The whole case is based on an unconvincing premise. How many lecturers does the Minister estimate will be made redundant? What will the cost be to the redundancy fund? Of those, how many are likely to find equally substantial and responsible posts in high schools, for example? Let us have some facts and figures in place of wild conjecture.
If this foolish policy of closing down delightful colleges is followed, what will be the saving in building costs?

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of these lecturers work only about eight hours a week?

Mr. Dempsey: I am not aware of that. My hon. Friend might not have had the grounding that I have had. I have been a member of the governing bodies of two of these colleges and during my time no one did anything but a full and, I hope, rewarding working week. Surely we are entitled to know what economic benefits this policy will bring. We can then ask whether it is really worth while.
The birth rate is falling, but no one uses that as an argument to close the schools. I hope that we can avoid closing down colleges that have given excellent service.
I have never been to Craigie and Callendar Park, but I know Dunfermline, which is one of the most excellent colleges not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom, especially designed and constructed for the purpose. It is absolutely crazy to talk of closing it. I had a long association with Craiglockhart and it is equally disastrous to talk about closing down a college as splendid as that.

10.29 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I have only a few minutes to reply on matters in which I can claim no particular expertise. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with certain aspects of the educational problems and mentioned the statement which will be made in due course by the Secretary of State and the decision which will emerge.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to examine a number of points. I am happy to undertake to carry out that examination.

Mr. Dalyell: That is all I ask tonight.

Mr. Sheldon: In the limited time left I can deal with only one or two.
I can tell my hon. Friend that the rôle of the Treasury is to establish the proper use of resources and to ensure that value


for money is obtained in various directions—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having

continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.